BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until Tuesday 18 June (Standing Order No. 20).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Clinical Commissioning Groups (Funding)

Hugh Bayley: What plans the Government have to change the NHS formula for funding clinical commissioning groups; and if he will make a statement.

Jeremy Hunt: Allocations to CCGs are the responsibility of NHS England. However, I have been advised that NHS England will rely on advice from the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation (ACRA) for changes in the CCG formula.

Hugh Bayley: The failure of the Government to use the long-established funding formula for the NHS in dividing the budget between CCGs in north Yorkshire has left us with glaring anomalies, so that in York, the funding is £1,050 per head, but for Scarborough and Ryedale, which is served by the same NHS foundation trust, the funding is £1,234 per head. That is quite unsustainable and will lead to further postcode rationing. The same funding formula must be applied to all CCGs throughout the country. When will that happen?

Jeremy Hunt: I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the way that NHS funding is allocated to different parts of the country. The allocation in my constituency is about the same as in his constituency, and I have long worried that things like age and rurality are not factored into the final amounts in the way that they need to be. However, in this case NHS England decided that if it was to follow precisely the ACRA recommendations, it would lead to higher growth for areas with better health outcomes and lower growth, or even cuts, for areas with less good outcomes, which it thought would be inconsistent
	with its responsibility to reduce health inequalities. That is why it is conducting a fundamental review, which it says it hopes will inform the next set of allocations for 2013-14.

John Penrose: The Secretary of State will be aware that in my area of north Somerset, in Weston-super-Mare, the actual allocations versus the intended amounts of cash which should arrive with us based on the existing formula, are well below what they should be; so even without changing the funding formula, we are still getting dramatically less cash than we should. I urge the Secretary of State to look at that swiftly and see what can be done, within the existing spending envelopes, to make the allocations fairer.

Jeremy Hunt: As I said, I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the way funding works at the moment. We are in a very difficult situation because if we were to move closer to the formula proposed by ACRA—I am sure he would agree with me that it is right that it is done independently of Ministers, and in this case it is done under NHS England—it would mean cuts in real terms for the budgets in other areas. Given the pressures overall in the NHS, that was obviously a decision that NHS England was very reluctant to make.

Andy Burnham: The last Government matched health funding to health need and reduced the gap in male life expectancy and infant mortality, but this Government have reduced the weighting for health inequalities. The Secretary of State’s public health allocations mean that the areas he has identified today with the biggest health challenges do not get a fair share. The area with longest male life expectancy, Kensington and Chelsea, gets £133 per head, but Liverpool gets £89, Manchester £86, Luton £61, and Slough just £37. If he really wants to do something about health inequalities, should he not match his words with deeds and give more to the areas with the greatest challenges?

Jeremy Hunt: The right hon. Gentleman really cannot have it both ways. The budget for public health is also decided by an independent body, and we gave everyone a real-terms increase and then used any remaining money to even out the differences, to get everyone as close as possible to the independent formula. But if we are talking about spending, I think the right hon. Gentleman needs to say precisely whether he stands by his assertion that Governments should cut spending on the NHS by £600 million—[Interruption.] He says he has never said it before, but actually, up till now he has always said that it was irresponsible for the Government to increase spending in real terms. We have increased it; we have increased it by £600 million. He needs to come clean on whether he still wants to cut the NHS budget.

Julian Sturdy: Given that age is the main driver for an individual’s health care needs, why has not age been given more weighting in the funding formula in the past? I urge the Secretary of State to request NHS England to give as much weighting as possible to age in any future funding formula.

Jeremy Hunt: I recognise that my hon. Friend has campaigned on that issue a great deal, and I have great sympathy, because areas with high age profiles do have
	much greater needs for the NHS. That obviously must be weighted against things like social deprivation, which also have an impact. It is right for these things to be decided independently, which they are. The question is how we get closest to those independent allocations, and I know that that is preoccupying NHS England at the moment.

Pre-natal and Post-natal Care

David Amess: What steps his Department is taking to ensure consistent and continuous provision of pre-natal and post-natal care.

Daniel Poulter: The Government are committed to improving continuity of care during pregnancy and the post-natal period. To give women the personalised care that they deserve, we have increased the number of midwives by nearly 1,400 and the number of health visitors by more than 1,000 since May 2010. In addition, there are a record 5,000 midwives in training.

David Amess: Will my hon. Friend visit Southend university hospital, and tell residents at first hand what steps the Government are taking to ensure that post-natal care meets clinical guidance and the Government’s aspirations to ensure that the maternity experience is continuous, with patients having one dedicated midwife?

Daniel Poulter: I would be delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency. He has been a tremendous advocate for maternity services, both nationally and in his constituency, in his time in the House. As I am sure that he has realised, if we want a genuinely personalised maternity service, we need to ask women about their experiences of care. That is why the Government are introducing a friends and family test in maternity from October this year.

Barry Sheerman: The Minister knows full well that post-natal depression is the thing that is most likely to kill a healthy young woman, and we know how to deal with it, but in many areas across the country we are cutting the number of visits from midwives after births, and the support given. We know how to tackle post-natal depression. Why should it be that in some parts of the country the support is wonderful, and in others, it is non-existent?

Daniel Poulter: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight that there has, in the past, sometimes been unacceptable variation in the quality of post-natal care. That is why we are increasing the number of midwives and have done so by nearly 1,400, and why we are putting money and effort into increasing the number of health visitors, who play a vital role in supporting mums, babies and families in securing that important bond, and in supporting mums so that they get the right help when they suffer from post-natal depression.

Children's Heart Surgery (Yorkshire and the Humber)

Stuart Andrew: What plans he has for the future of children’s heart surgery provision in Yorkshire and the Humber.

Jeremy Hunt: I asked the Independent Reconfiguration Panel to undertake a full review of the “Safe and Sustainable” review of children’s congenital heart services. I have received and am currently considering that advice, and will make my decision known shortly—perhaps very shortly.

Stuart Andrew: I am grateful for that answer. Will my right hon. Friend accept that the Leeds unit has undergone the greatest scrutiny of any of the units included in the review, and has met all the standards required? Will he therefore assure patients, families and staff that both he and NHS England have every confidence in the performance and standards of the Leeds unit? If we are to have informed choices on the future of heart units, surely all units must be subject to the same scrutiny.

Jeremy Hunt: First, I want to congratulate my hon. Friend on the sustained campaigning that he has done for that children’s heart unit, and on the very responsible way that he has conducted himself in what has been an extremely difficult campaign for the people of Leeds. I have full confidence in children’s heart surgery at Leeds; I know that the Leeds unit does an excellent job. He will understand, as I do, that when there are safety concerns, they have to be investigated, but I am delighted that those issues have been resolved, and that surgery is continuing.

John Healey: The hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) is right that the Leeds unit has been subject to greater scrutiny than any other unit, and the decisions in its case have been more seriously flawed than in the case of any other unit. What guarantee can the Secretary of State give those families across Yorkshire who depend on this major, life-changing surgery that the unit will not simply be removed from our county and put beyond their reach, taking away this vital service for them and their families?

Jeremy Hunt: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot prejudge the decision that I will take on reflection, having read the Independent Reconfiguration Panel report, so this morning I cannot give him an answer as to what will happen. However, I can reassure families in Yorkshire, and throughout the country, that where there are safety concerns, we will take them very seriously indeed and investigate them promptly, and where there are difficult reconfiguration debates to be had, we will not duck them, but in all cases, the interests of patients—patient safety and reducing mortality—must be our primary concern.

Greg Mulholland: There seems to have been little reliable evidence for the suspension of services at Leeds, but rather for the safe and sustainable review itself. Will the Secretary of State now do what NHS England has so far refused to do to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, despite the recommendation of the health and overview scrutiny committee in Yorkshire, and finally publish all the official e-mails between the Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts and the National Specialised Commissioning Team between 2008 and 2013, so that he can finally learn the truth about the review and what has gone so wrong with it?

Jeremy Hunt: I know that NHS England is totally committed to transparency and when I make my final decision on the safe and sustainable review, we will publish a lot of information. But all the things that he refers to are subject to normal freedom of information processes, and I am sure that he will pursue those.

Tobacco Packaging

Paul Flynn: What his policy is on the introduction of standardised tobacco packaging; and if he will make a statement.

Gavin Shuker: When the Government plan to respond to their consultation on standardised packaging of tobacco products.

Anna Soubry: The Government have yet to make a decision. We are still considering the lengthy consultation, and in due course we will publish a report on that.

Paul Flynn: We heard on the radio this morning about the poor state of the country on levels of cancer. The Government have an opportunity to reduce those levels by the Bill and by the minimum price for alcohol, but when it comes to the Queen’s Speech, have they again been persuaded by the blandishments of lobbyists, and instead of putting the health of the nation first, have put the needs of big business first?

Anna Soubry: I certainly do not agree with the latter part of that. Just because something was not in the Queen’s Speech does not preclude us from introducing legislation should we take that decision. The hon. Gentleman makes some important points when he talks about the link between mortality and choices about how much alcohol one drinks or whether one chooses to smoke, but we await a decision from the Government.

Gavin Shuker: Many of my constituents, including Cancer Research UK ambassador, Elizabeth Bailey, are asking a simple question: why is it taking the Government so long to respond to this consultation? Is not the truth that they are caught up in interdepartmental squabbles while public health suffers?

Anna Soubry: No, it certainly is not, and I have given my views. The hon. Gentleman will know that like many decisions on public health, these are complicated matters. Most importantly, it is vital that we take the public with us. I have said before that I welcome a debate, and perhaps he and the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) might come to you, Mr Speaker, and ask for a debate in this Chamber or in Westminster Hall. Let us have the debate, because taking the public with us is always important when we make these sorts of difficult and controversial decisions.

Philip Davies: Does the Minister agree that some of the proposed standardised packaging is more colourful than the existing packaging, and given that we have a display ban on cigarettes, what on earth is the point of having standard packaging for something that cannot be displayed?

Anna Soubry: Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to advance all the arguments, but I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this with him at length and show him a packet of the said cigarettes from Australia, and he may see the light.

Sarah Wollaston: Does the Minister agree that there is nothing plain about plain packaging? It just shows the reality of gangrene of the foot with graphic images, which is not very attractive to hand round at a party.

Anna Soubry: Yes.

Diane Abbott: The Minister is aware that smoking is the biggest single cause of health inequality, and she will know that the Labour Government took difficult, complicated and controversial decisions that were successful in driving down smoking from 27% to 20%, saving thousands of lives. Why are this Government stalling? When will they announce a decision? Or is it that the business interests of Lynton Crosby matter more to these Ministers than the health of the nation?

Anna Soubry: I am sure that Mr Crosby would be grateful for that bigging-up. I can assure the hon. Lady that, as she knows, if standardised packaging was as simple as she tries to suggest, no doubt the last Government would have introduced it in some way. I am proud of the fact that we have made sure that the point of sale legislation has been achieved. As she knows and as I have said before, this is a difficult and complex issue. It requires a good and healthy debate. Let us bring on that debate. Perhaps the Opposition would like to use one of their Opposition days to bring it forward. I will be more than happy to take part.

NHS Hospitals (Bed Occupancy)

Luciana Berger: What estimate he has made of the optimal level of bed occupancy in NHS hospitals.

Daniel Poulter: Average annual bed occupancy rates for all NHS beds open overnight have remained stable between 84% and 87% since 2000. The Government do not set optimal bed occupancy rates for the NHS. NHS hospitals need to manage their beds effectively in order to cope with peaks in both routine and emergency clinical demand.

Luciana Berger: I listened carefully to what the Minister said, but the Royal College of Physicians has warned that this winter there were more black alerts—when a hospital has no beds available—than there were over the previous 10 years combined. What urgent action are the Government taking to reduce bed occupancy levels and prevent next winter being even worse?

Daniel Poulter: We had this debate last week. The long-term pressures on the NHS, as we know, are the result of an aging population, with increasing numbers of older people arriving in A and E with complex needs, so the challenge is to ensure that they are better treated in the community. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister of
	State launched the integrated care pilots last month. We are also seeing more patients treated as day cases than ever before. About 80% of elective admissions are now treated as day cases, which shows a massive improvement in the speed and quality of care in the NHS.

Philip Hollobone: Kettering general hospital is located in an area that has one of the fastest growing populations in the country and above-average growth in the number of patients aged 80 or over. What more can be done to send the correct signals to local authorities that they need to act quicker to get elderly patients out of hospital once they have been treated so that they can have the care they need in the community, thus freeing up hospital beds?

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that local authorities have a key role to play in integrated care. That is why in April this year the Government set up local health and wellbeing boards, which will bring about greater integration of care between the NHS, housing providers and social care locally. That will hopefully ensure that across the country we have a much greater focus on local health care needs and, in particular, on better supporting older people and people with long-term disabilities at home and keeping them out of hospital.

Andy Burnham: A moment ago the Minister mentioned more elderly people coming in through A and E, and I want to present the House with new, deeply troubling evidence of that. Nobody wants to think of a very frail elderly person with no other support at home having to come to A and E by ambulance, but that is what increasing numbers of elderly people are having to do. Buried in the general A and E figures is an appalling increase in people aged over 90 coming to A and E by blue-light ambulance, which is up by 66%, equivalent to more than 100,000 of the most vulnerable people in our society. That is an appalling failure and a sign of something seriously wrong in the way we care for older people, and it is set to get worse as home care is cut further this year. Will he investigate that increase urgently and act now to prevent the collapse of social care?

Daniel Poulter: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—there is almost an outbreak of consensus across the Dispatch Boxes on this issue. We both recognise, rightly, that there is a long-term challenge in providing more integrated, joined-up care to better look after older people. However, it is ironic that he should raise that concern, because a previous Minister in the other place, the noble Lord Warner, has made the case very clearly that the previous Government failed to invest adequately in elderly care throughout their time in office. That is why this Government—I hope that we can count on the right hon. Gentleman’s support for this—are investing in health and social care, more integrated services at a local level through health and wellbeing boards and—

Mr Speaker: Order. The answers are too long. They need to get shorter, because we have a lot to get through. It is very simple and very clear.

John Pugh: Given that we have the lowest ratio of intensive care beds in the EU, what are the Government doing to monitor possible risks in future?

Daniel Poulter: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that historically there have been challenges with intensive care beds. We are now seeing increases in some areas of intensive care, particularly paediatric intensive care and paediatric cots, to ensure that there is greater support in that service, but he is absolutely right that we need a greater emphasis on specialist centres focused on intensive care. That is something that the NHS Commissioning Board, NHS England, is focused on delivering. We need to ensure that across each region of the country there is more focused care and more specialist intensive care.

Cancer Waiting Times

Stephen McPartland: What progress he has made on improving cancer waiting times and diagnosis.

Anna Soubry: Cancer waiting time standards set out a maximum two-month wait from urgent GP referral for suspected cancer, through to diagnosis, to the first definitive treatment. Quarterly performance in the past 12 months has consistently exceeded the performance measure of 85%; indeed, the current data show that 86.3% of patients were treated within this time frame.

Stephen McPartland: I am a firm believer in bringing cancer care closer to people’s homes. My constituents have to travel thousands of miles during the course of their radiotherapy treatments. Will the Minister support my campaign for a satellite radiotherapy unit to be based at Lister hospital in Stevenage?

Anna Soubry: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s campaign, which he has been running for some time, and to all the great work that he does for Lister hospital. I am slightly worried that if I give him any support it might be the kiss of death for his campaign, but I wish him all the very best and all power to his elbow.

Barbara Keeley: One group of people greatly affected by a cancer diagnosis are the carers who suddenly find themselves to be carers of people with cancer. Yesterday I met some people who are carers of people with cancer, and they told me that they did not get the information, advice and support that they needed to tackle that important caring role. Does the Minister agree that it is about time that we recognised those carers and started to give them the advice and support that they need because they suffer financial loss, hardship, loss of career and impacts on their own health?

Anna Soubry: I very much do agree. That is why I am so pleased that the Care Bill that is making its way through both Houses has special provision for people who are caring for others with cancer in the way that the hon. Lady describes.

Andrew Gwynne: Last week Monitor, the regulator for foundation trust hospitals, said that cancer patients are now waiting longer for treatment and diagnosis because of the A and E crisis in hospitals. Official NHS figures published that same day show that the number of patients waiting over three months for cancer, heart disease and other life-saving
	tests has more than doubled compared with only last year. Is it not obviously the case that this Health Secretary’s failure to cut the spin and get a grip on the A and E crisis is now seriously damaging patient care?

Anna Soubry: That was a very interesting speech but I am afraid that I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s analysis at all. All cancer waiting time standards are being met, with over 28,000 patients being treated for cancer following a GP making an urgent referral for a suspected cancer. We have already heard about the action that this Government are taking to address the situation in accident and emergency; it was very well explained in last week’s debate

NHS Accountability

Gavin Barwell: What steps he is taking to increase accountability in the NHS.

Jeremy Hunt: We have transformed accountability in the health system by setting up Healthwatch and introducing stronger local democratic accountability through health and wellbeing boards.

Gavin Barwell: Croydon PCT’s accounts for 2010-11 showed a £5.5 million surplus; it subsequently turned out to be a £23 million deficit. The former chief executive and two former finance officers have adamantly refused to give evidence to a scrutiny committee set up by councils in south-west London. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is unacceptable and that NHS managers must be held to account, and given that two of these individuals still work in the NHS, does he have the power to compel them to give evidence?

Jeremy Hunt: Accountability is extremely important. Local authorities can require members or employees of local health service commissioners to appear and answer questions, and NHS organisations and individuals should co-operate with that. I am extremely concerned by what my hon. Friend says. He knows that I have received a report on this from the joint overview and scrutiny committees for six south-west London boroughs, and I will be responding shortly.

Helen Jones: Does the Secretary of State agree that accountability would be improved if the private providers who are increasingly providing NHS services were subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000? Will he ensure that as more and more services become privatised under this Government, those people are subject to the same freedom of information provisions as those in the NHS, because otherwise no committee can hold them to account?

Jeremy Hunt: Perhaps I could gently remind the hon. Lady that the previous Labour Government did not do this, despite making huge efforts to get more private sector involvement in the NHS. Providers must operate on a level playing field, and so the inspection regime that we are setting up, with a new chief inspector of hospitals, will apply equally to the private sector and the public sector.

Stephen Dorrell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the introduction of health and wellbeing boards represents a very welcome introduction of democratic accountability into the management of the health and care system? Does he further agree that the acid test of health and wellbeing boards will be their ability to increase the pace of integration between health and care so that the service we deliver is more closely matched to the needs of patients?

Jeremy Hunt: As is so often the case, my right hon. Friend speaks extremely wisely on this issue. Integrated services will be the big thing that transforms the service we offer vulnerable older people, which the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) mentioned earlier. Health and wellbeing boards will have an extremely important role to play in bringing together local authorities and clinical commissioning groups so that we have joint commissioning of services for those very vulnerable people.

Joan Ruddock: On accountability, whenever I have asked the Secretary of State how lives might be saved by downgrading Lewisham’s A and E he has cited the medical advice of Sir Bruce Keogh. My colleagues and I have repeatedly sought meetings with Sir Bruce and it is unprecedented in my experience to not receive a response to such a request. Is the Secretary of State satisfied with that? Is Sir Bruce free to meet Lewisham MPs, or has the Secretary of State told him not to?

Jeremy Hunt: Sir Bruce is free to meet anyone he likes. Actually, he had a meeting with MPs last month, which the right hon. Lady could have attended if she had wanted to do so, and there was extensive engagement with local south-east London MPs before the decision on Lewisham hospital was made.

Accident and Emergency Departments (Ministerial Visits)

Tom Blenkinsop: How many accident and emergency departments he visited in an official capacity in winter 2012-13.

Jeremy Hunt: I regularly visit a range of services across the NHS. Since taking up post in September 2012, I have visited 28 NHS front-line services, including seven A and E departments.

Tom Blenkinsop: Will the Secretary of State confirm that a freedom of information request to the Department of Health revealed that he did not visit an A and E unit until April 2013, a full six months after his appointment and despite a clear A and E crisis over the winter-spring period under his supervision?

Jeremy Hunt: As ever, the Labour party is being selective in its use of information. As I have said, I visited seven A and E departments, including over the Easter period when we had some severe A and E pressures that I wanted to investigate for myself. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman about another thing that this Government
	have done that his Government never did: it is not just Ministers who are going out on to the front line; we have asked all our civil servants to go on to the front line for up to four weeks. I am extremely proud that my Department will be the first to connect with the front line in that way, and am even prouder of the response from my own civil servants, who embraced the scheme with great enthusiasm.

Clive Efford: Could we have some accountability for the strategic planning of A and E services across London? Nine of them face closure and 28 ambulances were redirected to Lewisham, which the Secretary of State intends to downgrade. Without a strategic approach, how can patients be confident that their best interests are being served?

Jeremy Hunt: We do have a strategic approach, but we also have some very important safeguards that any big change in approach has to go through before it is implemented. That is why I asked for a report from the Independent Reconfiguration Panel on the plans for north-west London, and I will consider that report very carefully before I make any decision.

Paul Burstow: When considering issues relating to A and E closures, particularly the proposed closure of the A and E department at St Helier hospital, which serves my constituents, will the Secretary of State ensure that those who propose such plans make sure that there is also a costed plan for developing out-of-hospital care, which is an essential prerequisite for any changes to acute services?

Jeremy Hunt: I agree with my right hon. Friend on this issue. It is extremely important that all these plans take a holistic view both locally and nationally. That is why, in looking at how to resolve the A and E issues we have faced and the severe pressures last winter, we are looking not just at what happens inside A and E departments, but at primary care alternatives and the integration of social care services, which are all equally important.

Jamie Reed: Perhaps it took the Secretary of State so long to visit an A and E unit because he could not get in. In the midst of England’s A and E services experiencing their worst waiting times for a decade, the Secretary of State criticised hospitals for coasting. Does he regret waiting for six months before first visiting an A and E unit and finding out for himself what damage his policies were doing to the front line of the NHS? Hospital consultants, A and E consultants and patients look forward with interest to hearing his answer.

Jeremy Hunt: We will take no lessons on being connected with the front line from the party that missed 50 warning signs about what was happening at Mid Staffs. The hon. Gentleman cannot make the narrow point about how many A and Es I visited during a particular period without addressing the broad point about how connected Ministers in his party were when they were in power. They rejected 81 requests for a public inquiry because they did not know what was happening at Mid Staffs.

NHS Resource Allocation

Andrew George: Whether he has any plans to review his policy on resource allocation in the NHS.

Jeremy Hunt: Allocations to the NHS are the responsibility of NHS England. However, I have been advised that it will rely on the advice of the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation for changes to the allocations formula.

Andrew George: While many wealthy areas are overfunded, Cornwall is more underfunded than anywhere else in the country. In the past six years, it has received in excess of £200 million less than the Government say it should receive. It also receives the lowest tariff in the country for acute care. Is the Secretary of State prepared to meet me and other representatives from Cornwall to address the serious issues that that is causing in front-line care?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend has had meetings with my ministerial colleagues on that issue and knows that such decisions are made at arm’s length from Ministers by NHS England. The allocation for NHS Kernow is £1,235 per head and the average baseline clinical commissioning group allocation is £1,184 per head. However, I recognise that there are issues with rurality and the age profile of the population. That is why a fundamental review is taking place of the approach that ACRA takes.

Steve Rotheram: In response to a parliamentary question that I tabled, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), stated that circa £15 million in underspend was handed back to Public Health England by the now dissolved primary care trusts on Merseyside. Given that Liverpool has been identified as having some of the greatest health inequalities, will the Secretary of State guarantee that every penny of that £15 million will be spent in Merseyside alone?

Jeremy Hunt: What I can guarantee is that there will be a real-terms increase in the public health budget for all local authorities under a two-year settlement, which they did not have before. I hope that the information that was published this morning, which shows how cities that are comparable to Liverpool are managing to get better health outcomes, will help the local authority in Liverpool to improve its results.

Mental and Physical Health

Mike Thornton: What progress he has made in delivering parity of esteem between mental and physical health.

Norman Lamb: One of NHS England’s objectives is to ensure that mental health and physical health are given equal priority. By March 2015, we expect the NHS to demonstrate measurable progress towards achieving parity of esteem, so that everyone who needs them has timely access to evidence-based services.

Mike Thornton: Freedom of information figures that were obtained by Mind from Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust reveal that in my constituency, the number of people with mental issues who are admitted to hospital, rather than treated by specialist crisis resolution and home treatment services, is higher than average. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that everyone has access to mental health crisis care services that provide alternatives to hospital admission?

Norman Lamb: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I applaud the work that Mind is doing to demonstrate the stark differences between the treatment of people with mental health problems who are in crisis and that of people with physical health problems. Its work demonstrates that without proper liaison services, people end up in hospital, at increased cost to the NHS. I have asked all the relevant bodies to get together to agree a plan to ensure that there is urgent crisis care for people with mental health problems, like that experienced by people with physical health problems.

Robert Flello: I am most concerned that as well as the problems at the crisis level, there is not enough support for people with low-level mental health issues so that they do not get into crisis. Although I welcome what the Minister has said about improvements by 2015, does he not agree that we need stronger and more defined targets to get the progress that is needed towards the mental health services that are required across the country?

Norman Lamb: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I agree that the more we invest in preventive care, the more we will save problems down the track and stop people’s health deteriorating. Areas that have managed to integrate mental health with primary care have seen good results, with better treatment, quicker access to treatment and less deterioration of health. That is the approach that we need to take.

NHS Services (Local Commissioning)

Dominic Raab: What progress his Department has made on implementing local commissioning of NHS services.

Norman Lamb: By April 2013, 211 clinical commissioning groups were authorised to commission the majority of NHS services for their local populations. CCGs are now empowered to design and deliver services based on the needs and choices of their patients, and NHS England will support CCGs to deliver high-quality outcomes.

Dominic Raab: I thank the Minister for that answer. My constituency struggled under a particularly inefficient primary care trust. It is, of course, early days, as the Minister has explained, but Surrey Downs CCG is already saving costs in bureaucracy so as to invest strategically in cutting counselling waiting lists, increasing funding for children with multiple disabilities, and setting up virtual wards run by a matron to supervise care in the community. Will the Minister join me in welcoming those important GP-led improvements in local care?

Norman Lamb: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and I applaud the CCG for the priorities it has set. Reducing waiting times for access to psychological therapies is a really good move, and the virtual ward has the potential to keep people out of hospital, maintaining their health better and reducing cost to the NHS.

Meg Hillier: Hackney CCG was one of the first to be up and running in shadow form. It is now operational but it is still persisting with a tendering approach to out-of-hours services. Will the Secretary of State write to the CCG to explain what has been said in this House—that tendering is not a requirement—and make it absolutely clear where the law lies?

Norman Lamb: The point I have tried to make all along is that this is about the judgment of the clinical commissioning groups, and nothing is imposed by the Government in what is required of them. European procurement rules existed under the Labour Government and this Government, but it is up to CCGs, working within the health and wellbeing board arrangements, to commission as they see fit for the benefits of their population.

Priti Patel: Despite Witham town’s growing population, our GP ratio remains above the national and regional average. Does the Minister agree that the local commissioning model, and the CCG in particular, would urge GPs to explore ways to expand Witham’s health care provision to meet the needs of the growing local population?

Norman Lamb: I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned vigorously and consistently on this issue and the needs of her local community, and I agree that GPs ought to explore all ways they can of improving health care for her community.

Keith Vaz: May I declare my interest, and ask the Minister whether he is satisfied with the progress being made by CCGs in the provision of diabetes prevention work?

Norman Lamb: I understand that all clinical commissioning groups have a lead on diabetes care, but we can do an awful lot more to improve prevention work. We know that if we guide people in self-care, we can achieve massive improvements in their own health and well-being, and reduce the number of crises that occur. I am happy to work with the right hon. Gentleman to ensure we do everything we can to improve diabetes care.

East Midlands Ambulance Service

Chris Heaton-Harris: What recent representations he has received expressing concern about the service provided by the East Midlands Ambulance Service.

Daniel Poulter: Over the past year we have received more than 40 letters from MPs in the east midlands, including my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), local authorities and members
	of the public, about the service provided by the East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust and its being the best programme. My hon. Friend will also be aware that there was an Adjournment on the matter earlier this year.

Chris Heaton-Harris: The Minister will recall that I have raised a number of constituency cases with his Department and the Care Quality Commission about the standard of services provided by EMAS to my constituents, and how it treats its staff. Will he assure me that the Department will continue to monitor EMAS’s performance in the coming months?

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend can be reassured that the trust development authority and the local chief commissioner for Erewash CCGs are closely monitoring the situation. Today, the Marsh review into the east of England ambulance service has been published, and lessons from that review about how management processes can improve front-line care for patients can be learned and applied across other ambulance services.

Martin Vickers: My constituency is also served by EMAS and it is evident that my constituents have cause for concern. Coupled with uncertainty about the future of the Leeds children’s heart unit and higher than average mortality rates in local hospitals, the situation is causing considerable concern. Will the Minister agree to meet me and neighbouring MPs to discuss those problems?

Daniel Poulter: I would be delighted to do so.

National Cancer Drugs Fund

Pauline Latham: What recent assessment he has made of the national cancer drugs fund list.

Norman Lamb: In April 2013, NHS England published a national list of drugs available from the fund. The list was updated recently following a meeting of the national cancer drugs fund clinical panel. Clinicians can apply to the fund for the inclusion of a drug within the approved list.

Pauline Latham: The cancer drugs fund is due to come to an end in less than a year. Given that more than 28,000 patients have received treatment since the CDF was introduced, what discussions has the Minister had with NHS England on continuing funding for it after the end of the current arrangements?

Norman Lamb: I thank my hon. Friend for her question; she has campaigned vigorously to ensure that as many people as possible get access to the drugs they need. The fund has been a great success. More than 30,000 have I think now benefited from it. We want to do all we can to ensure that the good lessons we have learned from it continue.

Antimicrobial Resistance Strategy

Zac Goldsmith: What progress has been made on implementation of the UK five-year antimicrobial resistance strategy.

Anna Soubry: We will shortly be seeking cross-Government clearance to publish the UK strategy, which addresses the challenges raised in the chief medical officer’s annual report and sets out the priority areas for action, such as slowing down the spread of resistance, maintaining the efficacy of antimicrobials and supporting the development of new antimicrobials.

Zac Goldsmith: In January, the chief medical officer warned that the threat from antibiotic-resistant infections was so serious that it should be added to the Government’s national register of civil emergencies, the national risk register, alongside deadly flu outbreaks or catastrophic terrorist attacks. My hon. Friend is preparing a new cross-Government strategy on antibiotics. Given the growing evidence linking the routine use of antibiotics on intensive farms with antibiotic-resistant infections in humans, can she confirm that the strategy will tackle that reckless practice, regardless of pressure from industry?

Anna Soubry: I could give my hon. Friend a long answer, but in short, the matter will be raised at the next G8 meeting. Further to that, as a result of his excellent debate earlier this year, I undertook to write, and have done so, to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He has replied that the Government recognise that we should look at the guidance issued to farmers. I am more than happy to share the Minister’s letter with my hon. Friend.

St Helier Hospital

Siobhain McDonagh: What the status is of the capital programme for the refurbishment of St Helier Hospital.

Anna Soubry: I am sorry, Mr Speaker, I am all over the place and do not have now the answer to give the hon. Lady. I believe the programme was signed off in 2010—[Interruption.] In fact, I am right—[Laughter.] Well—[Interruption.] Now, now; that is very naughty from the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). As you get older, Mr Speaker, you sometimes start to forget things—[Laughter.] Not you, Mr Speaker, of course; you would never do such a thing, and in any event you are much younger than I am.
	The Government re-approved the business case for the redevelopment of St Helier hospital in May 2010—I was right—as part of the review the previous Government’s spending commitments. As the hon. Lady knows, because of the various configurations and proposed configurations, no final decision has been made yet. We need to ensure that all the plans come to some sort of fruition.

Siobhain McDonagh: At my age, I share with the Minister a problem with memory loss, but I do not forget the years when we were trying to get the £219 million redevelopment of St Helier hospital agreed, or that the proposal was supported by the Chancellor in his first Budget. The money is now being used as a slush fund by Better Services Better Value, but its idea is to increase the sizes of A and E and maternity units of all the hospitals around while closing those at St Helier. Does the
	Minister agree that that was not the intention of the money, and that any future development plans must go back to the Department of Health for agreement?

Anna Soubry: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady, who campaigns hard for her hospital, and quite rightly so. I have met my right hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and am more than happy to meet her to discuss all the important matters she raises.

Topical Questions

Chris Heaton-Harris: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jeremy Hunt: There have been two important developments since the previous Health questions. First, in response to pressure on A and E departments, my Department, together with NHS England, has started work on a vulnerable older people’s plan that will act quickly to address the underlying causes of the issues, including services that are not integrated, poor IT systems, confused emergency care offered to the public and poor primary care alternatives.
	Secondly, following the tragedy at Mid Staffs, I am delighted to announced that Professor Sir Mike Richards has been appointed as England’s first ever chief inspector of hospitals. He is an inspirational leader who has personally championed huge improvements in cancer survival rates. He will lead the vital work of driving up standards of safety and care throughout NHS hospitals.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the Secretary of State for that statement. Will he give the House an assurance that he will look at GP contracts, with a view to amending them to ensure that better care is given to older patients?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Talk to any A and E department in the country, and they will say that poor alternatives in the primary care sector are one of the things that are driving the pressures on them. It is important that we look at the structures put in place by the 2004 GP contract to see whether they are the right way to provide the care we need to give to older people.

Liz Kendall: Last week, the Select Committee on Health took expert evidence on the increased pressures in emergency departments and the causes of the worst A and E crisis in a decade. On Wednesday, the Chair of the Committee told this House that the 2004 GP contract
	“is not why those pressures exist.”—[Official Report, 5 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 1605.]
	Will the Secretary of State tell us whether the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) is wrong?

Jeremy Hunt: I advise the hon. Lady to listen more carefully to what the Chair of the Select Committee said. He actually said that he agreed with much of what I said on the GP contract. While the Opposition are defending the status quo of the 2004 contract, independent support for reforming primary care is coming from the
	College of Emergency Medicine, the Royal College of Physicians, the NHS Alliance, the Family Doctor Association and even the head of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

Simon Hughes: In my borough of Southwark we have higher than average smoking rates, and the Cabinet member responsible for health has said that hundreds of people are dying early because they smoke. Can Ministers help me to persuade our Labour council that it is inconsistent to say “Don’t smoke” on the one hand and invest £2.6 million of pension funds in British American Tobacco on the other?

Anna Soubry: That is a good point, but I have to say that I am not convinced that it is just a Labour-run council that might have chosen to invest their staff pensions in this way; I strongly suspect that all political parties are guilty of this. While this is, of course, a matter for local authorities, it is also the sort of great campaigning work that MPs can do with their local councillors. It is even more important that they do that, given that they now have this great responsibility for public health.

Virendra Sharma: I welcome the leading role that the Department is taking in the formulation of a national strategy for TB. Its importance was reinforced by a recent all-party group report on resistant forms of the disease. One of the key points in the report was the importance of joint working in the development of the strategy, and that it should be public health-led. Does the Minister agree that NHS England also has a crucial role to play in the development of the strategy? Will she ensure that it works closely with Public Health England to develop it?

Anna Soubry: The short answer is yes. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work of his APPG. We had a good meeting in December and I am looking forward to our follow-up meeting tomorrow when we will discuss this matter further.

Steve Brine: Now that public health responsibilities have, as has been discussed, moved to local authorities and Public Health England, can the Government confirm that raising awareness of the signs and symptoms of cancer and early diagnosis, which is of course so important, will be key priorities for those bodies? Will the Minister tell the House how the Government will assess progress?

Anna Soubry: Again, that is a very good point. I completely agree with my hon. Friend and pay tribute to the work of his all-party group on breast cancer. Screening is important. This is also a good opportunity to pay tribute to the Secretary of State’s announcement today of the publication on the website of such outcomes, which will not only drive huge improvement in public health, but, most importantly, ensure that we reduce health inequalities. The previous Government failed to do that; this Government are determined that we will improve them.

Gavin Shuker: An enormous number of people—largely women—involved in on-street prostitution are caught in a cycle of drug and alcohol abuse, and are working to feed their habit, but at the same time, beyond managing drug dependency, many drug and alcohol services do not offer any practical pathways out of prostitution or even ask whether the client wishes to exit prostitution. Will Ministers look into this issue, consider issuing guidance and write to me?

Anna Soubry: Absolutely yes on all those very important points. The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point to which I absolutely subscribe. I have regular meetings on this matter, and I hope that our sexual health strategy addressed exactly those points, but I am more than happy not only to write, but to meet him to discuss the matter further. If I might say, I think that all Members, whatever the party political divide, could do far more both here and locally to reduce the number of women who find themselves working on the streets as prostitutes. I have long taken the view that these are some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and without exception I have never met a prostitute—I used to represent many of them—who has not herself been abused, usually as a child. They are vulnerable people and we should recognise them for that.

Zac Goldsmith: More than 5,000 schools across the UK now serve good-quality, sustainable meals with the Food for Life catering mark, but only three hospitals have achieved the same. It is often said that hospitals cannot do so because of the cost implications, but the three that have done so not only have incurred no extra costs, but, in the case of Nottingham hospital, have actually saved significant amounts. May I urge my hon. Friend actively to encourage take-up of the Food for Life catering mark as a model of best practice?

Daniel Poulter: We will certainly look into the issue that my hon. Friend raises, but he will be aware that there are campaigns throughout the NHS focused on supporting local food producers, which is important in many constituencies, particularly rural ones, and developing best practice and encouraging nutrition. Chefs such as James Martin have been involved in helping to drive up standards of care, particularly in Yorkshire and other parts of the country.

Luciana Berger: I listened carefully to the Public Health Minister’s answer just three questions ago, but the Government have disproportionately cut funding to the most deprived local authorities, including Liverpool, and these local authorities have today been shown to have higher mortality rates. How does the Secretary of State expect to close, rather than widen, health inequalities?

Jeremy Hunt: We actually gave a real-terms increase to all areas, including Liverpool, and followed the independent advice. If funding for public health in Liverpool is lower than it should be, that is because the last Government set the baseline way lower than it should have been.

Adam Afriyie: For the last decade, in the face of constant threats of closure to Heatherwood and Wexham Park, I have campaigned alongside local councillors, activists and residents to try to get the right balance of services across my constituency. The people I work with are very reasonable, as is the Secretary of State, so will he meet me and a small delegation from Windsor to discuss their options?

Jeremy Hunt: It would be my great pleasure to do so.

Alex Cunningham: Three Health Ministers have indicated their support, and one even voted for it, so will the Secretary of State either introduce his own legislation or back new clause 17 to the Children and Families Bill to ban smoking in cars with children present?

Anna Soubry: Well, it is a very good point, and the hon. Gentleman knows my own feelings. [Laughter.] No; it is important that we always get the balance right between good public health measures and not getting the accusation from both sides of being a nanny state. [Interruption.] No, no; it is all right his getting agitated, but he knows my view, and I am happy to give him any assistance I can—my door is always open.

Charlotte Leslie: Does the Secretary of State agree that any criminal investigation into the 200 to 300 deaths at Mid Staffs should extend not only to front-line staff, who risk getting scapegoated, but to all managerial levels, Department of Health officials and the heart of Government, so that we get answers about who knew what and when, and what action they took or—more importantly—did not take that could have prevented this tragic scandal?

Jeremy Hunt: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her determined campaigning on this issue. She will agree that we must allow the law to follow its course. The police are looking at the five reports on hospital safety that were undertaken, the inquests and the lists of patients who appear to have been treated badly, and they are talking to the relatives of those patients. We must allow them to do their work, but no one is above the law, and particularly in this case it is important that justice be done.

Tom Blenkinsop: With the Department of Health having awarded Cleveland fire brigade £198,000 from its social enterprise investment fund, will the Minister confirm, pursuant to concerns raised by the Fire Industry Association, that his Department undertook an assessment as to the compliance with the European state aid regulations of the state’s funding of community interest companies that compete to take business away from the private sector?

Daniel Poulter: I would be very happy to look further into the issue and to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss it.

Jason McCartney: Does the Minister agree that children’s heart surgery units such as the one in Leeds now need certainty so that they can continue to attract the highest calibre of staff?

Jeremy Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend and the sooner we can make a decision and announce it, the better. This issue is of huge importance to the people of Leeds and I want to do all I can to expedite the process.

Jim Shannon: When a patient is ill and visits their GP, they will do as the doctor orders. One hundred thousand people will die of lung cancer this year. When will the Government do as the doctor orders and bring in plain packaging for tobacco?

Anna Soubry: I refer my hon. Friend to answers that I have given beforehand. I know the great work that he does on lung cancer and I am pleased to see that, yet again, we will have a national campaign following the great success of the last one. We can talk further.

Annette Brooke: This is cervical screening awareness week. What plans does the Minister have further to encourage women aged 60 to 64 to attend cervical screening, given the declining levels of screening uptake and the increasing levels of incidence in this age group?

Anna Soubry: Screening is one of the most important aspects of the work of Public Health England and we are keen to make sure that it is addressed both nationally and locally. Great work can be done by local authorities in making sure that women have this vital screening.

Geraint Davies: Is the Secretary of State aware of the alcohol treatment centre in the middle of Cardiff, which treats people who are drunk on Friday and Saturday nights and therefore takes pressure off A and E, ambulance services and the police? Will he look at this model, as we are in Swansea, and pilot it elsewhere?

Jeremy Hunt: That is definitely worth looking at and is exactly the kind of proposal that we could think about for NHS England. It could make a very big difference.

George Freeman: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the position regarding NHS spending, in light of the recent comments from the shadow Health Secretary? My understanding is that spending increased from £99.7 billion in 2009-10 to £106 billion in 2012-13; an increase of £600 million, or 14,000 nurses or 6,000 doctors. Does not this show that the shadow Health Secretary’s reference to cuts is just irresponsible scaremongering?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is right. There has been a £600 million real- terms increase in spending, something that the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said was irresponsible. He will have to do a U-turn on this, and it will be an embarrassing one. He has talked
	about cuts in every single debate in the House and it turns out that those cuts never happened.

Louise Ellman: Life expectancy in Liverpool is 10 and a half years less than it is in Kensington and Chelsea. Does the Secretary of State think that he has any responsibility to address that?

Jeremy Hunt: Yes I do, which is why we have published a website today that gives much more detail than there ever has been before about health inequalities. it is why, nationally, the Government have been responsible for a huge amount of initiatives to boost public health, including calorie labelling in restaurants, action on point of sale display tobacco advertising, alcohol unit labelling and a range of other things. We will play our part.

Jane Ellison: In April, the BBC’s “Casualty” programme highlighted the vital role that health professionals have in spotting young girls at risk of being taken abroad or of having female genital mutilation carried out on them in this country. We are approaching the most difficult time of the year over the long summer holidays, when girls are most at risk. Will Ministers do all they can to draw the attention of health professionals to the vital role that they have in these critical next two months?

Anna Soubry: Absolutely, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to other hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber for the great work that they have done on FGM. I am really proud that the Government have produced the FGM passport, which is available to many young women. It does—I hope that it will continue to do so—protect women, especially younger women who are going abroad for this appalling abuse to be carried out upon them. We have done great work already with health professionals who increasingly realise, first, that they must be aware of it; secondly, that they must report it; and thirdly, that they must take action to prevent this appalling abuse of women, especially young women.

Ian Austin: I listened to the answer to Question 7 earlier, but surely the best way to improve accountability in the NHS would be much greater consumer choice and competition when it comes to GP services, for which there are virtually no comparative data at the moment. With modern IT, why can patients not choose to have their own medical records and then ring round to find a GP who will treat them when they want to and not when their own GP deigns to see them?

Jeremy Hunt: What the hon. Gentleman says has a lot of merit. We need to have transportable digital medical records that can be accessed anywhere in the system. That would make better out-of-hours care much more possible than it is at the moment.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry; demand always exceeds supply at Health questions, rather as in the health service, so we must now move on.

GCSEs

Michael Gove: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the future of examinations.
	There is now a widespread consensus, underpinned by today’s authoritative report from the Select Committee on Education, that we need to reform our examination system to restore public confidence. That is why today we are publishing draft details of new GCSE content in core academic subjects. The independent regulator Ofqual is publishing its own consultation on the regulation of reformed GCSEs. We are publishing the draft content in English, mathematics, science, history, geography and modern and ancient languages alongside this statement. We will consult on that content over the next 10 weeks. We expect that these subjects, with the exception of languages, should be ready for first teaching in September 2015, with the first exams being taken in the summer of 2017. Languages and other subjects will follow soon after, with first teaching from September 2016 and the first exams being taken from the summer of 2018.
	The new subject content we are publishing today has been drawn up in collaboration with distinguished subject experts, all with expertise and experience in teaching. I would like to thank them for their dedicated work. In line with our changes to the national curriculum, the new specifications are more challenging, more ambitious and more rigorous. That will mean that there should be more extended writing in subjects such as English and history. There should be more testing of advanced problem-solving skills in mathematics and science and more testing of mathematics in science GCSEs, in order to improve progression to A-levels. We should have more challenging mechanics problems in physics, a stronger focus on evolution and genetics in biology and a greater focus on foreign language composition, so that pupils require deeper language skills.
	This higher level of demand should equip our children to go on to higher education or a good apprenticeship. We can raise the bar confidently, knowing that we have the best generation of teachers ever in our schools to help students to achieve more than ever before. Our education reforms—the growth in the number of academies and free schools and the improvements in teacher recruitment and training, as well as sharper accountability from improved league tables and a strengthened Ofsted—are raising standards in state schools. That means that new GCSEs will remain universal qualifications—accessible, with good teaching, to the same proportion of pupils as now.
	The specifications that we are publishing today also give awarding organisations a clearer indication of our expectations in each subject. Under the previous system, specifications were often too vague. This caused suspicion and speculation that some exam boards were “harder” than others, undermining the credibility of the exam system as a whole. Including more detail in our requirements for subject content should ensure greater consistency and fairness across subjects and between exam boards. By reducing variability in the system, we hope to ensure that all young people leave school with qualifications that are respected by employers, universities and those in further education.
	While making GCSE content more rigorous, we must also correct the structural problems with GCSEs that the coalition Government inherited. As today’s report from the Education Committee confirms, the problems with English GCSEs generated last summer proved beyond any doubt that the current system requires reform. Both the Education Committee report and Ofqual recognise that controlled assessment, which counted for 60% of the English GCSE qualification, undermined the reliability of the assessment as a whole. I therefore asked Ofqual to review the regulatory framework for GCSEs to judge how we might limit course work and controlled assessment and to reflect on how we could lift a cap on aspiration by reducing the two-tier structure of some GCSEs. I also asked Ofqual to explore how we might reform our grading structure, the better to reflect the full range of student ability and reward the very best performers.
	Ofqual’s consultation sets out how reformed GCSEs can be more rigorous and stretching while encouraging students to develop and demonstrate deep understanding. It is proposed that course work and controlled assessment will largely be replaced by linear, externally marked end-of-course exams. It is proposed that the current two-tier system will end, except where it is absolutely essential: in maths and science. In those subjects, Ofqual is consulting on how to improve the current arrangements to deal with the concerns that we and others have expressed about capping aspiration. Ofqual is also consulting on a new grading system that will give fairer recognition to the whole ability range.
	Young people in this country deserve an education system that can compete with the best in the world—a system that sets, and achieves, high expectations. Today’s reforms are essential to achieving that goal. By making GCSEs more demanding, more fulfilling and more stretching, we can give our young people the broad, deep and balanced education that will equip them to win in the global race. I commend this statement to the House.

Stephen Twigg: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of the statement and the consultation documents.
	Here we are again. Last summer, we had “Bring back CSEs and O-levels”: dropped. Then it was the English baccalaureate certificate: dropped. Just last week, it was going to be I-levels, but there is no sign of them today. The Secretary of State is cutting back on resits for students, but he affords himself a fourth attempt at GCSE reform. The problem last summer was that he started with qualifications when he should have started with the curriculum. He was putting the cart before the horse—a grade A lesson in bad policy making.
	When we were in government, we raised standards across schools. On the performance measure of five A* to C grades including English and maths, we went from 35% in 1997 to 59% in 2010. Let me give the House a quote:
	“Schools got better over the course of the last 15 years.”
	Those are not my words but those of the Secretary of State a year ago. The improvements were the result of a laser focus on literacy and numeracy, better teaching and better schools.
	Parents are worried that, by allowing unqualified teachers into classrooms, this Government are damaging education standards. They want to know that the changes to the curriculum and qualifications will help to equip their children for the jobs of the future. Let me set three tests for the changes. First, will they strengthen rigour and raise standards, by introducing the rigour of the future that rejects a choice between knowledge and skills? We need both. Secondly, are the changes driven by the evidence of what actually works, here and elsewhere? Thirdly, will they command consensus and stand the test of time?
	On the curriculum changes, we will study the detail of today’s proposals. We want to strike the right balance between setting out entitlements to high-quality education and freedoms for schools and teachers to innovate. What is the Secretary of State’s evaluation of how academies have used their freedoms, and of the implications of that for the future national curriculum? When will he bring forward plans for other subjects that are not covered by today’s announcement? In particular, what about the young people who want to study high-quality technical and practical subjects? For too long, they have been the forgotten 50%, yet there is no reference to them in today’s statement.
	We support the reform of controlled assessment, but we do not support its wholesale abandonment across almost all subjects.
	“Moving towards linear assessment will reduce the reliability of GCSE. Less coursework means less assessment time which leads inevitably to lower reliability—this is about as cast iron a rule in assessment as there is”.
	Those are not my words; they are the words of Prof Dylan Wiliam, one of the distinguished experts to whom the Secretary of State referred in his statement.
	What body of evidence supports this wholesale switch on controlled assessment? The Secretary of State has previously expressed doubts about tiering. I welcome the principles Ofqual has set out today. Has he changed his mind on tiering in maths and science?
	On grading, I accept that there is a good case for more differentiation at the top end, but I am concerned about consolidation at the other end. Surely it is vital that there is challenge and stretch for all students across the ability range? There is a strong argument for moving to what Ofqual has described as scaled scoring, giving students the actual percentage mark subject by subject. I know Ofqual feels we are not ready for that yet, but does the Secretary of State share my aspiration to move towards such a system in the future?
	In conclusion, there is a clear lesson from this past year: this is no way to conduct system reform. Future change should be informed by the evidence and should properly engage with professionals. If we do that, I think we really can achieve lasting and successful reform.

Michael Gove: May I, first, thank the hon. Gentleman for his witty and discursive response? Picking through the thickets of the comments he made, I think there was a broad welcome for the direction of travel we have set out today, and in our efforts to achieve consensus across the House—which has always been my aim—I am grateful for that.
	May I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his acceptance that Ofqual is right to recognise the case for tiering in mathematics and science? He asked what my view is:
	my view has always been that we should, wherever possible, seek to remove any cap on aspiration, but we have listened to the experts, and they conclude in this case that tiering in maths and science is appropriate.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked whether I believe, as some do, that we should move from not just an alphabetical to a numerical skill, but to scaled scores. The consultation provides an opportunity for those who believe that that is appropriate to make their case. Ofqual will make a judgment, and I will listen closely to what it says, but I think the need to change the way in which we award grades reflects the improvement in teaching, to which he alluded and which I entirely endorse.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about technical and practical subjects. As I have confirmed before, technical and practical subjects are our highest priority in the Department for Education, which is why our reforms started with vocational qualifications and the publication of the Wolf report. I recently wrote to the hon. Gentleman to ask him if he still stood by his endorsement of the Wolf report. I still await a reply, but I know he is a busy man and I shall wait patiently to hear what he has to say.
	The final thing I should say is that the hon. Gentleman asks for evidence for the case for change, and all I need do is commend to him the superb work done by the Select Committee in its report today, which points out that it was the introduction of changes by the last Government that fundamentally destabilised GCSEs. The hon. Gentleman himself has acknowledged that there was grade inflation on Labour’s watch. Let us be clear: yes, there were improvements, thanks to changes in our education system and a higher quality of teaching than ever before, but they were put in doubt by Ministers’ failure to ensure that the gold standard was adequately protected. We are, at last, protecting the standards on which all our children depend.

Peter Tapsell: Instead of all this perpetual messing about with the education or examination system, would it not be better and simpler to return to the arrangements of my distant youth, in which in order to matriculate—that magic but now disappeared word—pupils had, as the Secretary of State knows very well, to get six credits at school certificate level, one of which had to be in mathematics and one in a foreign language? If they got those six credits, they went on to the higher certificate, and if they could get two distinctions in higher certificate they automatically got a state scholarship and a guaranteed free university education. Everybody understood it, it worked very well, so why do we not go back to it?

Michael Gove: First, may I say to my right hon. Friend that his youth is not that distant? He is still in the prime of life and the full vigour of all his abilities, and the system he has outlined, with credits for a broad range of subjects, is very similar to the English baccalaureate measure we have introduced. I did not know that, in introducing the English baccalaureate, I owed so much to my right hon. Friend, but I am happy to say that the virtues of the education system that existed in his youth have been reinstated. However, impressive as the education he enjoyed was, we also need to move with the times, and we are making a number of changes that better reflect the competitive nature of the 21st century.

David Blunkett: Taken together, the three new reports announced today are not as bad as some of us may have feared. May I put it to the Secretary of State, however, that employers and post-16 providers want young people who have learnt how to learn, have been able to demonstrate that they are able to work in teams and are able to speak English as well as to write it? My experience through night school was that the old O-levels, with the final exams, were easy for those of us at the time who had a good memory. What we surely need to be moving to in the continuing consultation is removing the worst of the past and the over-emphasis on a modular approach and assessment, while not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Will he continue to listen?

Michael Gove: I am very grateful to be praised with faint damns by the right hon. Gentleman, and I entirely agree with him; it is important that speaking and listening sits alongside the composition, written and analytical skills in English language. That is what we propose to do, by ensuring that speaking and listening, which is inherently more difficult to assess, in what is a benchmark qualification, is assessed alongside the written component of English. I always look forward to hearing from the right hon. Gentleman, who is far, far more often right than wrong.

Graham Stuart: May I thank hon. Members from all parts of the House for their kind words and support since my accident?
	I congratulate the Secretary of State on today’s statement. We have the broad outlines of the right policy and, unlike the shadow Secretary of State, I think that a Secretary of State who puts forward ideas, listens to the response and changes a Government policy as a result is making policy in the right way. However, may I put it to the Secretary of State that this has a tight timetable, so will he assure the House, parents and teachers that he will always ensure that getting it right is more important than sticking to the timetable he has set out?

Michael Gove: I thank my hon. Friend for his generous words and may I say how good it is to see him back in his place in the House? May I also thank him for the fantastic work that his Committee has done in its report on what happened to GCSEs last summer, which is published today? I entirely take on board his endorsement of the Department for Education’s Hegelian approach to policy making of thesis, antithesis and then synthesis. We will make sure that the timetable is kept under review. We have already extended the timetable for A-level implementation to take account of precisely the concerns he has so wisely articulated.

Pat Glass: The Secretary of State deserves an A* for his ability to cherry-pick the parts of the Education Committee report he agrees with while ignoring those parts he disagrees with. On grading, we all agree that there are good reasons for more differentiation at the top end, but surely it is not the top end that is our problem. So what in today’s proposals will support and challenge those 50% of children at the bottom end?

Michael Gove: It is a very fair challenge from the hon. Lady, who has devoted a great deal of time in this House to reminding us how important it is that we tackle that tale of underachievement. We want to consult on exactly how the grading system can fairly reflect the full range of ability, but we also need to ensure that students who sit these examinations are supported long before they come to sit a GCSE so that they are able to achieve more effectively. We are making a series of interventions, ranging from the introduction of the pupil premium and the extension of 15 hours of free pre-school education to the poorest two-years-olds to the endowment from the Education Endowment Foundation fund to support research into how we can support the poorest students, which were intended to deal with precisely those children who are the strongest concern of both of us.

Dan Rogerson: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement that we are committed to one qualification, open to all, and to looking at how we can raise aspiration for all students. If the evidence from the consultation shows overwhelming support for some element of coursework in arts and humanities, as well as in the practical subjects, will he retain an open mind on it?

Michael Gove: First, I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done throughout this process to ensure that it better reflects the needs of teachers, for whom he speaks so effectively. I have a real concern that coursework or controlled assessment in benchmark qualifications such as English and mathematics creates problems, but I listened to Ofqual when it argued that there should be an element of coursework to test bench skills—practical skills—in science, and I remain open to all arguments. I have a strong disposition, but it is not incapable of being swayed by strong evidence.

Diane Abbott: The Secretary of State will appreciate that I cannot speak about the detailed implementation of his reforms, but does he agree that an emphasis on rigorous qualifications and on obtaining core academic subjects is not, as is sometimes argued, contrary to the interests of working-class children and of black and minority ethnic children? On the contrary, precisely if someone is the first in their family to stay on past school leaving age, precisely if someone’s family does not social capital and precisely if someone does not have parents who can put in a word for them in a difficult job market, they need the assurance of rigorous qualifications and, if at all possible, core academic qualifications.

Michael Gove: I am in love! The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and if I had been a member of the Labour party I would have voted for her to be leader.

Mr Speaker: I hope the hon. Lady can recover from that.

Nick Gibb: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and, in particular, the reforms to ensure that essay writing skills are tested in English and history GCSEs, and the reforms that ensure a deeper understanding of and facility with mathematical processes and formulae
	in the maths and science exams, with less predictable and more demanding questions. Will he assure me that the exam boards, chastened as they are by universal criticisms of their failure on the stewardship of grade values, will not allow grade inflation to creep into these newly reformed GCSEs?

Michael Gove: I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to him for the fantastic work he did in office to lay the foundations for some of the changes we are announcing today. I do think that the exam boards are chastened and that their current leadership recognise that the credibility of the qualifications they offer depends on their policing standards with even greater rigour than ever before.

Barry Sheerman: The Secretary of State will know that rigour and reliability are quite elusive, that many Governments have tried to combine those two and that it is difficult to do so. May I welcome today’s report and what he said to the House, and the fact that this is going to be subject to consultation? However, may I say to him that sometimes he should learn the lesson that I learnt during 10 years as the Chair of the Select Committee, which is that you have to carry people with you—you have to carry parents, students, teachers and the broader community with you—and that he sometimes falls into the trap of being more in favour of disruptive innovation than building a consensus for change, which he really will need?

Michael Gove: Those are very generous words from an experienced politician that I shall take to heart.

Andrew Turner: What are the Government doing to ensure that a putative future Labour Government will not falsely inflate the grades of schoolchildren, as Labour has done before?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We cannot guarantee that a future Government, of whatever political colour, will not be tempted to try to flatter itself by bringing in a little grade inflation. We have in Ofqual and in its current regulator a strong leader determined to ensure that that will not happen. It is a pity that we do not have the same robust system of regulation in Wales, for example.

Diana Johnson: The CBI has said that we need to produce “rounded and grounded” young people, but I understand that these plans will not assess those important competences, which business require. Why is the Secretary of State not listening to business organisations?

Michael Gove: I very much enjoy listening to business organisations, even those such as the CBI that have historically perhaps been wrong on big issues—for example, the euro. Nevertheless, there is a lot that the CBI has said about education that I do commend, and I think that the introduction of a greater degree of rigour in English language writing skills and a higher level of demand in mathematics meet exactly the request from all sorts of businesses to ensure that there is higher attainment among the students they wish to recruit.

David Nuttall: Does the Secretary of State agree that as a majority of people believe that GCSEs have become easier in recent years, these substantial reforms are essential to restore the confidence of employers and further education establishments in the GCSE system?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know he is committed to education—we first met in a school in his constituency—and I know he absolutely believes that we need to restore confidence in these examinations. The only people who are let down if there is not public confidence in these examinations are young people, and he is absolutely right to point out that confidence has been eroded over time.

William McCrea: It is vital that the GCSE brand is consistent, and is respected, across the United Kingdom. Will the Secretary of State therefore tell the House what consultations he has had, or will have, with the devolved Administrations, including the Northern Ireland Assembly? Will he ensure that agreement and consensus can be reached, so that GCSE qualifications will not be compromised in any region of the United Kingdom?

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman—my hon. Friend—will know that I am absolutely committed to the unity of this kingdom and I want to do everything possible to ensure that Ulster remains British. That is why it is important that we say to people in Northern Ireland, and in particular to Northern Ireland’s current Education Minister and the devolved Administration, that the changes that he might make to GCSEs have attracted the attention of the regulator, Ofqual, here. I do want to work with him and the many superb teachers in Northern Ireland to ensure that there can be as close as possible an alignment between our education systems.

Karen Lumley: Does the Secretary of State agree that our children deserve the best education that we can give them, and they only get one chance of that? Does he also agree that the extensive use of coursework has masked the true picture of some of our pupils’ abilities?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are some subject areas—art and design, design and technology—where it is important to show practical skills through coursework, but there are other areas, particularly English and mathematics—particularly English—where, unfortunately, coursework and controlled assessment have not reinforced the rigour that we all want.

Julie Hilling: Following on from that last comment, why does the Secretary of State not believe that properly assessed and moderated coursework demonstrates a depth of understanding of a subject that simply learning facts to be churned out at an exam does not?

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady misunderstands the fact that at the moment, as the Select Committee report points out today, coursework and controlled assessment can lead to over-marking and inconsistency. It is also the case that the modularisation of GCSEs, which
	occurred under a Labour Government, led to precisely the sort of cram-and-forget style of learning that I think neither of us approves of.

John Glen: I warmly welcome today’s announcement. What representations has the Secretary of State had from employers’ organisations showing that they feel these changes are likely to add to the economic competitiveness of this country and make it easier for them to select credible candidates for employment?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The CBI has pointed out that the number of employers who are dissatisfied with school and college leavers’ basic skills remains stuck at around a third; the Institute of Directors has said that the value of GCSEs has declined; and the Federation of Small Businesses has said that eight in 10 small businesses do not believe that school leavers are ready for work. Business recognises that we need rigour, and that is why business supports the coalition Government.

Alex Cunningham: Teachers—even head teachers—who are responsible for delivering the Secretary of State’s curriculum have expressed little confidence in him on the nature and timing of his changes. When will he really listen to the professionals in schools who actually teach and plan and know what they are talking about?

Michael Gove: It is an unfortunate myth that the profession is united. There is a range of views within the teaching profession and among head teachers. What is striking is that an overwhelming number of those who lead outstanding schools and are developing outstanding practice support the drive for higher aspirations that this coalition Government are leading.

Stephen McPartland: Education is the best opportunity for poorer children to change their life chances. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need an exam system that employers and teachers have confidence in, to help those poorer pupils achieve in life?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Few people know more about the chalk face than he does, given that his partner is a primary school teacher. He is absolutely right that we need to change our examination system, to restore confidence that has unfortunately been dented.

Clive Efford: The Secretary of State’s entire statement is about the importance of qualifications, and I am sure parents will appreciate that, but can he give parents an assurance that no unqualified teachers will be teaching these GCSE courses?

Michael Gove: One thing I can say is that teachers are better qualified than ever, and the new head of the Teaching Agency and the national college, Charlie Taylor, has been responsible for changes that ensure that we have more highly qualified young people, teaching to a higher standard than ever before.

Peter Bone: I declare an interest: my daughter is a teacher in a state school.
	Does the Secretary of State agree that he is in danger of winning over teachers, winning over the Opposition and doing a very good job? Is that the way we should be proceeding?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right: sometimes we need to be divisive and pugnacious, but today I am glad that consensus on a number of issues appears to exist across both Front Benches.

Geraint Davies: Will the Secretary of State accept that his proposals will blight the value of the qualifications of those taking examinations in the next four years and break the union of qualification currency between England and Wales? Should he not have tried harder to get a compromise, instead of simply leaking the contents of his meetings with the Welsh Government to the press?

Michael Gove: Into every life a little rain must fall. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that the fault lies, I fear, with those who have not been as anxious to preserve the rigour in the examination system as our regulator, Ofqual. I will say no more.

Anne Main: I welcome the removal of grade inflation—we owe it to our young people to have a value system that everyone recognises. However, as someone of Welsh heritage, who got all my qualifications in Wales, I am very concerned that certain qualifications will now have greater merit than others, which will disadvantage poorer communities, and some employers will not understand the two sorts of qualifications that may come about.

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend puts her finger on a really important issue. One thing that I am anxious to do is to secure, with the help of the regulator, a proper understanding that can help us to encourage those responsible for qualifications in Wales to recognise which changes are appropriate and which are not.

Meg Hillier: As the Secretary of State knows, we have some of the best secondary schools in the country in Hackney, where rigour is very important. As the Secretary of State’s approach to education policy seems to be that it is in one day, out the next—he is playing hokey cokey—can he assure head teachers, parents and pupils in my area and around the country that there will not be a lot more changes down the path?

Michael Gove: A clear direction of travel has, I hope, been set today and we will of course consult and listen, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right. In Hackney, a high level of ambition has been embedded for years, and I know there are head teachers and teachers in Hackney who welcome the direction we have set today.

John Howell: I declare an interest, in that my wife is a teacher. The Secretary of State has already referred to the opinion of the Federation of Small Businesses that eight in 10 of its members thought that school leavers were not ready for work. How will these reforms address that problem?

Michael Gove: Small businesses, like all businesses, want to ensure that students have the English language skills necessary to communicate with confidence in a business setting and the arithmetical and mathematical skills necessary to compete effectively in the 21st century. I believe that the changes we are making to English and maths—the benchmark qualifications—will meet the needs of business.

Chris Bryant: Would that every young person who had failed their resits on three occasions was able to claim that they were merely engaged in a process of Hegelian dialectic with the examining authorities, although I would prefer a more Socratic dialogue, such as has been engaged in in Wales. It is a real shame that the Secretary of State has set himself against coming to a common position across the whole of the United Kingdom. What I really do not understand for the life of me is why he thinks that learning vast quantities of “The Wreck of the Hesperus” or “The boy stood on the burning deck” or “If” will make young people better equipped for the work environment.

Michael Gove: There are two things that I would say. First, I am always anxious to reach consensus with colleagues in Wales, but it takes two to make a consensus. [Interruption.] At least two. The second thing that I would say is that when it comes to learning English, yes it is important to have the utilitarian skills that business demands, but it is also important that children from every background are given a chance to appreciate beauty—the best that has been thought and written. I know that the hon. Gentleman appreciates beauty in many spheres of human endeavour—

Chris Bryant: Truth is beauty, beauty truth.

Michael Gove: And he is quoting Keats now. All I would say is that he is not the only person who has an interest in poetry. I was delighted when John Cooper Clarke, one of my favourite poets, said only last week that our approach to the teaching of poetry was absolutely right.

Glyn Davies: What discussions has my right hon. Friend had, or does he intend to have, with the Welsh Government on the issue? It is crucial that we retain the integrity and credibility of Welsh pupils in the eyes of employers and universities across the United Kingdom. Has he considered suggesting to the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that she go to the Welsh Assembly to speak to her political colleagues about a positive way forward?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I respect the devolution settlement, and it means, of course, that the Education Minister in Wales can make the appropriate decisions which he considers to be right for Wales, but I want to ensure that we can work together in future to bolster confidence in all the examinations that young people take. I have already had a meeting with the Welsh Education Minister, which was frank and cordial; I hope that we can have further such meetings.

Jim Shannon: Further to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), the timetable is tight, and discussions
	and interaction with the devolved Administrations are vital. We should be ever mindful that they also have a legislative process to go through. What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that the timetable is not too rigid, so that delivery in all parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can be achieved?

Michael Gove: That is a very good point, and we will work with the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland, and with Westminster representatives like the hon. Gentleman, who takes a close interest in these matters, to make sure, if we can, that there is proper alignment.

Craig Whittaker: I thank the Secretary of State for his announcement, which is a huge step, putting more rigour and higher standards in academic subjects. May I press him on when we can expect the draft curriculum programme of study for design and technology, and in which year he expects that to be taught?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we put forward draft programmes of study for different curriculum areas, some of them attracted more controversy than others. It is fair to say that design and technology was one of the most controversial. We have listened to some of the critics, and a new draft will be forthcoming in a few weeks’ time.

Alun Cairns: I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, who is responding to the demands of employers and higher and further education providers, and to the needs of pupils, by reintroducing rigour to the exam system. Does he share my concern that pupils in Wales, who may want to seek employment opportunities across the UK and beyond, could be disadvantaged if the Welsh Government refuse to follow this reform? Will he agree to make the qualification available, irrespective of the Welsh Government’s judgment, to those schools that want to pursue this new rigorous GCSE?

Michael Gove: Absolutely—this qualification should be available to all state schools that have high aspirations for their students. Next Monday, I look forward to meeting Andrew R.T. Davies, the gifted gentleman who leads for the Conservatives in the Welsh Assembly. I will also talk to Welsh Conservative MPs, of whom there are a growing number, to see how we can take this forward effectively.

Neil Carmichael: As a member of the Education Committee, I welcome the Secretary of State’s positive use of our report in today’s statement, because it was a well-researched, considered report. I also welcome his appreciation of the role of Ofqual, but does it include making sure that teachers are not teaching to the exam rather than to the subject as a whole?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. One of the problems with the way that modularisation occurred was that it led to too much teaching to the test, and insufficient deep understanding. I hope that our reforms will address that.

Guy Opperman: My constituents in Northumberland will welcome this effort to raise standards across the board, although my local schools already produce outstanding results, despite very low per capita funding. Will the Secretary of State meet a delegation of head teachers of my high schools at some stage this summer in Westminster, to discuss both this consultation and the proposed transitional funding arrangements?

Michael Gove: It would be a pleasure.

Philip Hollobone: The English language, used right around the world, is perhaps the greatest export from these islands, but one of the knock-on effects is that, despite the best efforts of colleges with specialist language expertise, such as the Montsaye academy trust in Rothwell in my constituency, as a nation we do not teach modern languages as successfully as we might. Against that background, why will modern languages be in the second wave of these reforms, not the first?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is simply that there are some quite difficult issues to deal with when it comes to finding exactly the right way to ensure that speaking and listening skills, in particular, are properly assessed, but I absolutely agree with him that we need to do more to encourage the take-up of languages. Unfortunately, it dipped under Labour; it is now increasing, thanks to the changes that we have made with the English baccalaureate measure.

Andrew Jones: Businesses that I have met in my constituency have told me of their concern about the level of literacy and numeracy among some school leavers, yet pupils can only sit the exams that are in front of them, and teachers are surely right to teach to those exams. Does that not show that the current system is not operating fully for everybody, and that the Government are right to focus on it, and fix it?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend puts the case brilliantly.

Mr Speaker: I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State and colleagues.

Point of Order

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am worried about the Secretary of State for Education. Not only has he fallen in love with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) this afternoon, but, more importantly, even though he met the Minister for Education and Skills in Wales only recently, he seemed to refer to him as a “she”. I should clarify for the House that he is Leighton Andrews, not Julie Andrews.

Mr Speaker: I am not sure that is a point of order, but for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman and the House, I will say that I could have told the Secretary of State that myself. Leighton Andrews is well known to me; he was my boss 25 years ago.

Children and Families Bill

[Relevant documents: Sixth Report of the Education Committee, Session 2012-13, Pre-legislative scrutiny: Special EducationalNeeds, HC 631;Fourth Report of the Justice Committee, Session 2012-13, Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Children andFamilies Bill, HC 739;Sixth Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2012-13, Reform of the Office of theChildren’s Commissioner: draft legislation, HC 811;Children and Families Bill 2013: Contextual Information and Responses to Pre-Legislative Scrutiny,Department for Education, Cm 8540.]
	Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 9
	 — 
	Transfer of EHC plans

‘(1) Regulations may make provision for an EHC plan maintained for a child or young person by one local authority to be transferred to another local authority in England, where the other authority becomes responsible for the child or young person.
	(2) The regulations may in particular—
	(a) impose a duty on the other authority to maintain the plan;
	(b) treat the plan as if originally prepared by the other authority;
	(c) treat things done by the transferring authority in relation to the plan as done by the other authority.’.—(Mr Timpson.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Edward Timpson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 8—Support for children with specified health conditions—
	‘(1) The governing body of a mainstream school has a duty to produce and implement a medical conditions policy that defines how it plans to support the needs of children with specified health conditions.
	(2) The medical conditions policy must include provision about—
	(a) the means by which records of the specified health conditions of children at the school are to be recorded and maintained; and
	(b) the preparation of an individual healthcare plan for each child with a specified health condition which sets out the needs of that child arising from that condition.
	(3) The medical conditions policy must include requirements relating to the provision of appropriate training for school staff to support the implementation of individual healthcare plans.
	(4) In preparing an individual healthcare plan the governing body must—
	(a) consult the parent of the child concerned and, where appropriate, the child about the contents of the plan; and
	(b) there shall be a duty on NHS bodies to co-operate with the governing body in its preparation and implementation of individual healthcare plans.
	(5) Local authorities and clinical commissioning groups must co-operate with governing bodies in fulfilling their functions under this Act.
	(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations define “specified health conditions” for the purposes of this section.
	(7) For the purposes of this section “NHS bodies” has the same meaning as in the Health and Social Care Act 2012.’.
	New clause 21—Inclusive and accessible education, health and social care provision—
	‘(1) In exercising a function under Part 3, a local authority and NHS bodies in England must promote and secure inclusive and accessible education, health and social care provision to support children, young people and their families.
	(2) Regulations will set out requirements on an authority and its partner NHS commissioning bodies to promote and secure inclusive and accessible education, health and social care provision in its local area, in particular through—
	(a) the planning;
	(b) the design;
	(c) the commissioning or funding;
	(d) the delivery; and
	(e) the evaluation of such services.’.
	New clause 24—Publication of information relating to Special Educational Needs tribunal cases—
	‘(1) The Secretary of State must collect information on all cases related to special educational needs which are considered by the Tribunal Service, including—
	(a) the local authority involved;
	(b) the cost to the Tribunal Service;
	(c) the amount spent by the local authority on fighting each case;
	(d) the nature of each case; and
	(e) the outcome of each case.
	(2) The Secretary of State must collate and publish information collected in the exercise of his functions under subsection (1) once a year.
	(3) The following bodies must make arrangements to provide such information to the Secretary of State as is necessary to enable him to perform his functions under this section—
	(a) the Tribunal Service;
	(b) local authorities.’.
	Amendment 59, in clause19,page18,line22,at end add—
	‘(e) the right of the parent to make their own arrangements for some or all of the special educational provision under section 7 of the Education Act 1996.’.
	Amendment 39, in clause21,page19,line16,leave out ‘wholly or mainly’.
	Amendment 60, in clause23,page19,line29,leave out ‘may have’ and insert ‘probably has’.
	Amendment 61, page19,line32,leave out ‘may have’ and insert ‘probably has’.
	Amendment 46, in clause27,page22,line3,at end insert—
	‘(2A) If the education and care provision provided as part of the local offer is deemed insufficient to meet the needs of children and young people under subsection (2), a local authority must—
	(a) publish these findings;
	(b) improve that provision until it is deemed sufficient by—
	(i) those consulted under subsection (3); and
	(ii) Ofsted.’.
	Amendment 62, in clause28,page23,line29,at end insert ‘;
	(n) Parent Carer Forums.’.
	Amendment 66, in clause30,page24,line21,leave out ‘it expects to be’ and insert ‘which is’.
	Amendment 67, page24,line24,leave out ‘it expects to be’ and insert ‘which is’.
	Amendment 30, page24,line34,at end insert—
	‘(f) arrangements to assist young people and parents in managing a personal budget should they choose one.’.
	Amendment 68, page24,line39,at end insert ‘, including in online communities.’.
	Amendment 69, page25,line7,at end insert—
	‘(7A) The Secretary of State shall lay a draft of regulations setting out the minimum level of specific special educational provision, health care provision and social care provision that local authorities must provide as part of their local offer, and the regulations are not to be made unless they have been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(7B) Once regulations under subsection (7A) have been made, the Secretary of State must—
	(a) issued guidance to local authorities on how to meet these regulations, and
	(b) publish information on these regulations accessible to the families of children and young people with special educational needs on the Department’s website, and in any other way he sees fit.’.
	Amendment 65, in clause36,page28,line21,at end insert—
	‘(1A) A person acting on behalf of a school or a post-16 institution (“A”) must request an EHC needs assessment for a child or young person (“B”) as soon as A becomes aware that B has been diagnosed with epilepsy or a related condition.’.
	Amendment 40, page29,line20,leave out subsection (10).
	Amendment 44, in clause37,page30,line8,leave out from ‘provision’ to end of line 10 and insert
	‘required by the child or young person.’.
	Amendment 41, page30,line13,leave out subsection (4).
	Amendment 45, in clause38,page30,line35,at end insert—
	‘(g) an institution of higher education which the young person has accepted an offer from.’.
	Government amendment 17.
	Amendment 37, in clause42,page33,line6,at end insert—
	‘(2A) If the plan specifies social care provision, the responsible local authority must secure the specified social care provision for the child or young person.’.
	Amendment 63, page33,line13,leave out ‘suitable alternative arrangements’ and insert
	‘arrangements suitable to the age, ability, aptitude and special needs of the child or young person and has chosen not to receive assistance with making provision.’.
	Amendment 42, in clause44,page34,line3,leave out subsection (5).
	Amendment 43, in clause45,page34,line37,leave out subsection (4).
	Amendment 64, page34,line39,at end insert—
	‘(4A) A local authority must not cease to maintain an EHC plan on the sole ground that the child or young person is educated otherwise than at school in accordance with section 7 of the Education Act 1996.’.
	Government amendments 18 to 20.
	Amendment 70, in clause48,page36,line21,at end add—
	‘(6) This section will not have effect until an Order is made by the Secretary of State, subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament.
	(7) Before making an Order under subsection (6), the Secretary of State must lay a copy of a report before both Houses of Parliament detailing findings from the pathfinder authorities established under the Special Educational Needs (Direct Payments) (Pilot Scheme) Order 2012, including but not limited to—
	(a) the impact on educational outcomes for children and young people;
	(b) the quality of provision received by children and young people;
	(c) the value for money achieved;
	(d) the impact on services provided for children and young people without EHC plans, or those for whom direct payments were not made.
	(8) The Secretary of State may not prepare a report under subsection (7) until September 2014.
	(9) An Order made under subsection (6) may amend this section as the Secretary of State deems necessary to ensure the effective operation of personal budgets, having had regard to the finding of the report produced by virtue of subsection (7).’.
	Government amendment 21.
	Amendment 38, in clause50,page37,line18,at end insert ‘;
	(g) the social care provision specified in an EHC plan;
	(h) the healthcare provision specified in an EHC plan.’.
	Amendment 47, in page48,line35,leave out clause 69.
	Amendment 71, in clause65,page45,line37,leave out ‘19’ and insert ‘25’.
	Amendment 72, page46,line11,leave out ‘19’ and insert ‘25’.
	Amendment 73, in clause67,page47,line21,leave out
	‘such persons as the Secretary of State sees fit’
	and insert
	‘publicly, for a period of not less than 90 days’.
	Amendment 74, page47,line22,leave out ‘by them’ and insert
	‘as part of that consultation’.
	Amendment 75, in clause67,page47,line23,leave out subsections (3) to (8) and insert—
	‘(3) A code, or revision of a code, does not come into operation until the Secretary of State by order so provides.
	(4) The power conferred by subsection (3) shall be made by statutory instrument.
	(5) An order bringing a code, or revision of a code, into operation may not be made unless a draft order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(6) When an Order or draft of an order is laid, the code or revision of a code to which it relates must also be laid.
	(7) No order or draft of an order may be laid until the consultation required by subsection (2) has taken place.’.
	Amendment 48, in clause72,page49,line46,leave out from ‘education,’ to end of line 1 on page 50.
	Government amendments 22 to 25.

Edward Timpson: Part 3 of the Bill introduces a much stronger framework for supporting children and young people with special educational needs. These reforms have been widely welcomed, and I am grateful to Members in all parts of the House for their interest in and
	support for them. We can be sure in the knowledge that the Bill has been significantly strengthened since draft clauses were published last autumn.
	We have all met constituents who have had to battle to get the special educational support that their child needs. These reforms are ambitious; they aim to ensure that in future, children, young people and their parents are at the heart of the system, and that special educational provision builds around them, instead of asking them to adjust to the system. It will not always work perfectly in every case, but the pathfinders that I have visited have convinced me that we have a really exciting reform under way—one that challenges local authorities to design a system around those who use it, rather than conform to existing structures and processes. The reforms are also ambitious as regards personal aspirations. The new system will support young people through further education and training, up to the age of 25 for those who need it, and focus much more strongly on independent living and helping them to find paid employment. The provisions extend support to younger years as well, so that children are supported as soon as their needs are identified, from birth onwards, instead of having to wait until they reach school to be assessed.
	The reforms provide the foundation for a system in which children and young people’s needs are picked up early; parents know what services they can reasonably expect their local schools, colleges, local authority, and health and social care services to provide, without having to fight for the information; those with more severe or complex needs have a co-ordinated assessment built around them and a single education, health and care plan from birth to 25; and parents and young people have greater control over their support. I believe these ambitions are shared across the House.
	We had a wide-ranging, constructive debate on Second Reading, and the Committee sittings were passionate, knowledgeable and helpful. I hope that today we can build on the broad consensus that has characterised the debate to date.
	We have also listened carefully to the views expressed by Members of the House, parents and young people, and many of the organisations supporting them, and we have acted to improve the SEN provisions following pre-legislative scrutiny and as the Bill has made its way through the House.

Mark Tami: The Minister may recall that he kindly met me to discuss my particular concerns about children who had suffered from cancer and perhaps missed quite a large amount of school but did not fit in with the SEN criteria. What level of support could they expect under these proposals?

Edward Timpson: I recall the constructive meeting that I had with the hon. Gentleman and he will remember that I gave a commitment then to work with him and with organisations with which he has been working with great astuteness to see what more we can do through the code of practice and other means to provide the additional support that we all want to see so that no child, particularly a child with cancer, misses out on the opportunity to fulfil their potential, and I will continue to work with him to achieve that.
	Following the Education Committee’s thorough and well-argued report—another one—in December, we amended the Bill in several ways. By virtue of clause 19,
	we introduced a requirement for local authorities when exercising a function under part 3 to have regard to the views, wishes and feelings of a child and his or her parent, or of the young person, and the importance of them participating as fully as possible in decisions, and being provided with information and support to enable them to do so—an important set of transcending principles.
	We have clearly specified the right of parents and young people themselves to request an assessment for special educational needs, to remove any uncertainty. We have ensured that young people on apprenticeships can receive support through an education, health and care plan. We have enabled independent special schools and specialist colleges to apply to be on a list of institutions for which parents and young people with education, health and care plans could express a preference. We have changed our approach to mediation so that parents and young people must consider mediation but do not have to take it up and can go straight to appeal to the tribunal if they wish without prejudicing their position.
	To ensure that services are responsive to families’ needs we added a requirement for local authorities to involve children, young people and parents in reviewing the local offer and to publish their comments about the local offer and what action they will take to respond, and we made provision for the SEN code of practice to be approved by Parliament by way of negative resolution.

Tom Clarke: I apologise for missing the first two minutes of the Minister’s speech. He outlines responsibilities that have rightly been referred to various public agencies, but I find it somewhat confusing that nowhere can I find, either in the new clause or in the amendments, any reference to advocacy. I might have missed something, but what role do the Government see for advocates in the situations that we are discussing?

Edward Timpson: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Advocacy comes in different forms. We have advocacy in relation to the legal process, and legal aid will still apply up to the point of tribunal for those who require legal advice. There is also advocacy in terms of trying to navigate the system. One thing that we are doing in relation to the pathfinders is to see who can help co-ordinate and navigate for parents and young people in a system that often has been too impenetrable, labyrinthine and drawn out. That could be through a key working role or through the work that the special educational needs co-ordinators carry out so effectively in so many of our schools. It is a practical response to the problem that we know exists while ensuring that the advocacy that is currently available for the legal process continues into the future. We set that out in Committee and I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to look carefully at what we said.

Guy Opperman: Will the Minister reassure some local authorities that the proposal will still ensure integration between the 1970 legislation, the Children Act 1989 and this Act, and make sure that there is not a silo system that does not have the integrated service that we all so want?

Edward Timpson: My hon. Friend touches on the heart of the Bill, which is to tackle the perennial problem of special educational needs, in that education, health and
	social care have tended to work in parallel rather than in conjunction with one another. In many of the clauses, both through the general duty to co-operate, the joint commissioning clause, and now the duty on health as well as the duty to consult parents and children themselves, there is already, with the pathfinders, a growing involvement of each of those different agencies in coming together and concentrating on the central and most important issue, which is the child. I hope he will see that the Bill gives local authorities an opportunity to nurture and grow their relationships with health and other agencies, and ensure that as a consequence they are providing better services for children in their local area.

Graham Stuart: I thank my hon. Friend on behalf of the Education Committee for taking such a positive and constructive approach to our pre-legislative scrutiny report, and implementing so many of the proposals, as he has just listed.
	My hon. Friend appeared before the Committee this morning in our inquiry into school sports, and he suggested that he would consider looking at the code of practice to ensure that rather than disabled children being sent to the library while others are doing sport, as we heard in evidence sometimes happens, they have access to sport in schools, and that that is part of an overall package to meet their needs.

Edward Timpson: As ever, I am grateful to the Chair of the Education Committee for raising a crucial element for many young people with a disability, and that is access to other activities outside those of the classroom. I am mindful of that and as I told the Committee this morning have seen for myself, at a special school in Chislehurst only last week, how the integration of sport in schools, where children with both physical and other disabilities are able to participate, can have a huge knock-on effect in other areas of their life. It would not always be appropriate through the identification of the needs and therefore the support for each child in relation to their plan to have a built-in element that incorporates and encompasses physical activity, but clearly we want to provide as much opportunity for them as for any other child. The schools should be doing it anyway under the Equality Act 2010 and the reasonable adjustments for which they are responsible, but it also makes good sense, as we know. I am happy—I made this commitment to the Committee—to look at that in the context of the code of practice, but also to work with many of the organisations and charities who are already out there, through the project ability scheme and others, to see what more they can do to spread good practice in this area. I am happy to keep my hon. Friend informed of that process.

Neil Carmichael: As has been mentioned, the Select Committee held a series of pre-legislative scrutiny meetings. Is the Minister satisfied that there are sufficient accountability mechanisms for agency co-operation, and that the appropriate agency will automatically take the lead? How will that work out in different cases?

Edward Timpson: Briefly to disaggregate my hon. Friend’s two points, clearly it is important that we know what is happening in schools on the delivery of SEN provision, and since September 2012 we have had a strengthened Ofsted framework that seeks to do that. I and my colleague in the Department of Health want to explore what more we can do to try to bring about a more multidimensional accountability and inspection regime for special educational needs that goes beyond the school gates and looks at it across education, health and social care, so there is more that we can do in that area. The Education Department is also looking at some of the destination measures in schools as a way of ensuring that we do not miss out on understanding the progress of children who sometimes fall below the radar because they do not count towards any of the measures of success that the school is being marked against. We need to get around that and make it more explicit that every child needs to be making progress whatever their ability, and there is no reason why all of them should not be doing so, and every school has a responsibility in that regard.
	We made further changes in Committee, where I was pleased to include a specific duty requiring those responsible for commissioning health provision to secure the health care provision education, health and care plans. This is a hugely significant change and has been widely welcomed. Srabani Sen, board member of the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign and chief executive of Contact a Family, when giving evidence to the Committee on 5 March, said that
	“it was phenomenally good news to hear this morning about the duty on health to provide. One of the things that that helps with enormously is bringing people together to work together at a service delivery level”—
	a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) made—
	“but it also gives parents something solid that they can use when they are having these discussions with their service providers about how they get the right services for their child. I do not think we can overestimate the potential of what you”—
	I think that means me—
	“announced this morning. It is phenomenally useful.”––[Official Report, Children and Families Bill Public Bill Committee, 5 March 2013; c. 47-48, Q103.]
	The new duty builds on the joint commissioning duty set out in the Bill, which requires local authorities and clinical commissioning groups, and NHS England where relevant, to assess the needs of the local population of children and young people with SEN and plan and commission services to meet them.

Tom Clarke: The Minister has referred several times to the role of local authorities, but the reality is that some local authorities give greater priority to this than others. Because this ought to be—I think that the Government agree—person-centred, considering the needs, rights and ambitions of young people, has he had an opportunity to speak with the Local Government Association, for example?

Edward Timpson: Yes, I have had a number of meetings with the Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Children’s Services and other bodies that will be responsible for delivering education, health
	and care plans and, more widely, SEN provision within their local area. This has been a huge consultative exercise, and one that continues through the pathfinders. One of the messages we have been clear about throughout the process is that legislation, although a key component of long-term, sustainable reform, is not the whole solution. We also need to see—this is happening through the pathfinders and starting to spread outside them as we develop the changes in the system more widely—a recognition that those bodies must play their part at grass-roots level and recalibrate the sorts of relationships that in the past have not been good enough to help deliver the required provision.

Alison Seabeck: I would like to build on the comments my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) made about the role of local authorities. The Royal National Institute of Blind People has raised specific concerns about the registration of visually impaired children—it is worried that some local authorities will do it but some will not. Has the Minister had an opportunity since that was discussed in Committee to have any further conversations with either the RNIB directly or local authorities on that issue?

Edward Timpson: I will be corrected if I am wrong, but my understanding is that there have been ongoing discussions. We are aware of the issue. As with all organisations that have expressed an interest in the Bill, we have been keen to keep an open dialogue with the RNIB to see what solutions we can find. Many of the solutions will be found at local level. We must accept that some conditions have a high incidence and some have a low incidence, and that can affect the sort of provision available right across the country. The beauty of trying to develop the local offer is that it will make it far more transparent not only in a local area, but across a regional area, so parents and young people will have a greater understanding of what is available to them, how they can access it and, if they are unable to do so, how they can make a complaint, which in the past has been quite a convoluted and impenetrable process. We must ensure that they have the power to make those decisions.

Guy Opperman: I am not sure whether I need to, but I will make a declaration: I have represented about 100 applicants for statements at special educational needs and disability tribunals, and local authorities still owe me money for some of them from before 2010. The simple question that my constituents in Northumberland would like answered, if that is possible, is this: will these proposals make it easier to gain a statement for those parents who have been trying to do so for so long, given that the process has been so convoluted and difficult over the years, as we have all found?

Edward Timpson: The short answer is yes. That is the intention of the Bill. There are a number of reasons for saying that. One of the complaints from parents about the statementing process relates less to the statement itself and more to early identification and the need for much greater effort from different agencies in co-ordinating the assessment and the plan. Everything in the Bill tries to encourage that and, in some circumstances, cajole the different bodies to come together and work with the family, rather than, as we have heard far too often, the
	family feeling that they are working in a different environment from those around them. By ensuring that that happens, we will reduce the prospect of conflict, misunderstanding and, therefore, the road to tribunal, which we all want to avoid. That is why we included the mediation process, albeit on a voluntary basis, to give parents and those responsible for providing services every opportunity to work together, co-operate and consult at every stage, but particularly in the early stages, in order to avoid unnecessary discord and damage further down the line.

Graham Stuart: While the Minister is on the subject of conflict between local authorities and parents, may I press him, as many of my amendments do, on home-educating parents, who all too often have been subject to misinformation and abuse of power by local authorities? Will he give serious consideration to including a provision stating that parents who home educate are not to have their children’s SEN support removed and that local authorities, despite their duty to find children with SEN, do not have their powers to demand access to children strengthened? We should reinforce the primacy of parents in deciding what should happen to their children and ensure that local authorities are the servants of families, not their masters.

Edward Timpson: I have a strong memory of spending a late night in the House a few years ago when my hon. Friend managed to get more than 100 of us to present petitions on behalf of many of those parents who decided to home educate their children. I know that he, as chair of the all-party group on home education, has been a great advocate on their behalf. Clearly we want to ensure that every child with SEN, however they are educated, during the period of compulsory age and beyond, from nought to 25, gets the support they require to meet their full potential. That should be no different in the circumstances he describes. I will be able to respond in more detail when we debate his amendments, and I am happy to continue that conversation with him outside the Chamber.

Neil Carmichael: On home education and the obvious issues relating to special educational needs, what consideration has the Minister given to registration of those children who are home educated?

Edward Timpson: I am straying slightly outside my portfolio, but where it impinges on special educational needs clearly we want to ensure that those children receive the support they require. There were attempts in the last Parliament to bring about some form of registration, which was eventually put out to grass. I think we have the balance right at this stage, but of course it is something that my ministerial colleagues who are responsible for these matters will no doubt keep under review.
	The new duty in the Bill relating to health commissioning also brings in joint commissioning arrangements, which must include those for securing education, health and care needs assessments and the education, health and care provision specified in the education, health and care plans. The new health duty requires health commissioners to ensure that the health elements of
	those plans are provided for each individual, thus providing direct clarity for parents that the support their child needs will be provided
	We have taken an open approach to the Bill, listened carefully to the views of a wide range of people and made changes to improve it. I know that is the approach that my ministerial colleagues in the other place, including Lord Nash, intend to continue when the Bill makes its way to them. However, before it does we have some important business to conclude in this House today.
	I will begin our consideration of the Bill’s SEN provisions by speaking to new clause 9 in a little more detail and to Government amendments 17 to 25. These amendments clarify responsibilities and make consequential amendments to legislation as a result of provisions in the Bill. With regard to new clause 9, it is important that the responsibilities of local authorities are clear when a child or young person with an education, health and care plan moves from one area to another. The new clause provides for regulations to specify those responsibilities. Regulations will make it clear that the new local authority is treated as though it had made the plan. This ensures that plans do not lapse when children and young people move from one area to another and that support for their special educational needs is maintained. I therefore urge the House to support new clause 9.
	Amendment 17 to clause 41 has been tabled at the request of the Welsh Government. It would enable independent schools that are specially organised for making provision for children and young people with special educational needs, and specialist post-16 institutions in Wales, to apply to the Secretary of State for Education to be on a list of independent institutions that those with education, health and care plans can ask to be named on their plan. If independent schools in Wales wish to put themselves forward for approval, the amendment will be of benefit to children and young people who live close to the Welsh border whose needs would be best met in a Welsh independent school or those who would be appropriately placed in independent boarding provision in Wales. I urge the House to support the amendment.
	On amendments 18 to 20 on personal budgets, I signalled our intention to table these consequential amendments when we debated clause 48 on personal budgets in Committee. The changes they make are necessary because of the changes we made to clause 42 in Committee by placing the duty in clause 42(3) on health commissioners to secure the health provision identified in an education, health and care plan. The amendments allow health commissioners to discharge their duty to make health care provision specified in EHC plans when this provision is secured using a direct payment. This replicates the equivalent provision on local authorities set out in clause 48(5). The amendments clarify that when parents or young people exercise their direct payment, this allows the commissioning body to discharge its statutory duty. The proposed use of the words “having been” in clauses 48(5) and 48(7) makes it clear that the duties on commissioning bodies and local authorities to secure provision are discharged only through the use of a direct payment when the child or young
	person has actually received the provision, in a manner in keeping with the regulations. I urge the House to support these amendments.
	Government amendment 21 relates to clause 49, which inserts new section 17ZA into the Children Act 1989, giving local authorities a power to continue to provide services they have been providing under section 17 to a young person before their 18th birthday to that young person when they are 18 and over. This is a technical amendment that makes it clear that the power in section 17ZA applies only to local authorities in England.
	Government amendments 22 to 25 relate to schedule 3 and make further amendments to existing legislation as a consequence of the Bill’s provisions—for example, replacing references to statements and learning difficulty assessments throughout. These are necessary changes to ensure the proper implementation of the reforms in part 3, and I therefore urge hon. Members to approve them.

Sharon Hodgson: It is a pleasure to debate this Bill again, this time on the Floor of the House. In Committee we had some excellent debates on this part of the Bill, in particular. A large number of amendments were tabled by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, but we were at all times united in our ambition for the children and young people to whom the Bill applies.
	It is crucial that children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities be given the support they need to access education and reach their potential, academically and in terms of their physical, social and emotional development. It is not just a moral imperative that leads us to seek those better outcomes for all children; there is also a financial imperative for the whole country. A young person who makes a successful transition to adulthood and has achieved as much as they can educationally is likely to be less in need of welfare, health and social care support and more likely to be able to work and contribute their skills to the economy and their taxes to the Treasury. We support a great many of the reforms that the Government are making to achieve these better outcomes, but we have sought at all stages to ensure that we are going as far as we can, that current rights and entitlements are protected and built on, and that children and young people, and their families, are at the very heart of the changes made and are able adequately to hold agencies to account where they do not get the support they should.
	We support the introduction of personal budgets to allow families a greater degree of choice in securing the choice that their child needs. As I said in Committee, I would have greatly welcomed such an opportunity when I was trying to get my severely dyslexic son the support he needed to get through his GCSEs. However, there are serious and abiding concerns about whether they can work in the sense of improving outcomes while providing value for money for the taxpayer, and there are still questions about how the market for support that this reform will create will really look. The Government are running pathfinders in an effort to answer these questions, but they have not been answered yet. Parliament is therefore being asked to legislate for something that we do not know will work and could well be a costly failure.

Tom Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend about the social, educational and employment needs of young people. On her point about the economy, I wonder whether she is aware that she is supported by the National Audit Office, which has said:
	“Supporting one person with a learning disability into employment could, in addition to improving their independence and self-esteem, reduce lifetime costs to the public purse by around £170,000”.
	She is therefore speaking very logically.

Sharon Hodgson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who quantifies what we all know and believe is the crux of this issue. He has made a very important point.
	Amendment 70 seeks to ensure that these reforms cannot be rolled out until such time as the pathfinders have run their course and provided sufficient evidence on the effectiveness of personal budgets that Parliament can be content in allowing the roll-out to go ahead. I hope the Minister will again take it in the spirit in which it is intended and give a commitment to the House that this measure will not be steamrollered through.
	We support the switch from statements to education, health and care plans, extending the maximum age of support for young people to 25 to ensure that it covers further education courses and apprenticeships, and the ambition to encourage joint working between different agencies in drawing up those plans and providing the services described in them. However, there are still some concerns that, as worded, the Bill would give local authorities a get-out clause from providing services to enable young people between the age of 19 and 25 to carry on in education, even where they have not yet achieved to the level we might expect for young people without SENs. Those concerns are addressed by amendments 40 to 43, tabled by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), which we support. I, like him, would be grateful for firmer assurances that prior outcomes, not age, will be the main focus of deciding whether or not to grant or cancel a plan.
	My amendments 71 and 72 would ensure that we are measuring the outcomes of young people with plans up to the age of 25 rather than 19, as is currently required under the Special Educational Needs (Information) Act 2008, which is transposed into clause 65. It stands to reason that if we are maintaining support for these young people, we should also know how well that support has helped them. I would be grateful if the Minister committed to how best that might be done within the “special educational needs in England” analysis documents that clause 65 will require the Secretary of State to produce.
	Another set of information that should be published as part of the annual report relates to the special educational needs and disability tribunal. I would like parents and campaigners to have access to information on the outcomes and costs to the public purse in tribunal administration and the amount spent by local authorities on legal fees—of the cases that reach that stage—so we can see who the worst offenders are and which local authorities would prefer to pay a lawyer £20,000 to prevent a child from getting £5,000-worth of support. The Minister helpfully pointed me towards some information that was squirreled away on the Ministry of Justice’s website, but as he will know, it is not exactly
	what I am asking for in this amendment, and in any case the information should be much easier to find and interpret. I therefore hope that he will continue to look at this issue or tell the House why, in an age of transparency, this information should not be available to parents.
	We want to reduce as far as possible the current postcode lottery, but still fear that the Government’s plans for local offers, as drafted, could lead to greater disparities in services across the country. We welcome the requirement to compile and publish local offers, but fear that without a baseline expectation from the Department of what should be in them or, indeed, any departmental oversight, they may not be worth the paper they are printed on. As the Education Committee has pointed out, getting local offers right is crucial. If we do not and the services that children and young people need are not provided, we will just see more and more requests for statutory assessments.
	Our amendments 66 and 67 would therefore require local offers accurately to reflect what is actually available in the local area, rather than simply what the local authority might say it expects to be available. They would remove the wriggle room that local authorities might have and ensure that they keep the offers under constant review. I hope the issue can be explored further in the other place.
	Amendment 69 would require the Secretary of State to set national standards for what the local offers should include. I am no enemy of localism, as the Minister might argue—local offers should absolutely reflect local needs and priorities and be drawn up in consultation with local parent groups. However, if we are to tackle the unwritten postcode lottery, there should surely be a baseline of services that any child or young person anywhere in England should be able to expect. I have said before that local offers may simply codify the unwritten postcode lottery, and that they have the potential to result in a race to the bottom as local authorities look at their budgets and seek to undercut the local offers of their neighbours. I want assurances from the Minister that there will be something—anything—to stop those fears being realised.

Dan Rogerson: The phrase “postcode lottery” is well used in all sorts of policy areas, but does the hon. Lady accept that there is a difference between a postcode lottery and a postcode democracy? In other words, where there is democratic accountability it is not, strictly speaking, a lottery, although I accept some of the hon. Lady’s concerns.

Sharon Hodgson: I accept that that phraseology is probably not appropriate for this scenario, but it is important that the Government consider a baseline so that we do not end up with different levels of service that can be referred to as a postcode lottery.
	Amendment 69 also refers specifically to the participation of children and young people with special educational needs or disabilities as a key outcome that local offers should be geared towards achieving. The Minister made some positive comments about this amendment in Committee, so I would be grateful if he provided an update on his work in order to ensure that the need to help these children and young people make the most of the benefits that information communication can afford them is adequately reflected in the code of practice.
	We are also concerned about the lack of clarity from Ministers on what will replace the graduated response to SEN in schools—school action and school action plus—which currently provides support to 17% of pupils. Members may know that the answer will lie in the revised code of practice rather than in the Bill itself, and that is why we have tabled amendments 73, 74 and 75, which seek to ensure that the document is subject to thorough public consultation before a final version is actively approved by Parliament, rather than laid under the negative procedure. I hope the Minister will recognise why we feel that is so important, and commit to tabling Government amendments to that effect in the other place.
	In addition to our own amendments, I have also signed a number tabled by the hon. Member for South Swindon. As reflected in his valuable contribution to the Committee’s scrutiny of part 3, the hon. Gentleman has a deep passion for and knowledge of the issues, and I find myself agreeing far more than disagreeing with him, despite the fact that we sit on opposite sides of the House. In particular, we are both extremely keen to see some movement from the Government on clause 69, which states that children and young people in custody should not benefit from the reforms in this part of the Bill.
	I feel—and I think the Minister agrees—that this is a massive missed opportunity. Many of the inmates of young offenders institutes will have special educational needs. For example, 18% of young offenders have a statement, compared with just 2% to 3% of the general population. At least 60% will have communication problems and a similar percentage will have literacy and numeracy difficulties. Many of those special educational needs will never have been identified, despite the fact that in many cases they were probably a contributory factor to those people finding themselves in this position. As it stands, they will not be able to continue to receive the support they were already getting if they are placed in custody, and nor will they be eligible for an assessment if someone working with them in the institution thinks they need one.
	This is not only counter-productive, in that it will severely limit these institutions’ ability to reduce reoffending through education, which is what we want them to do; it is also overly prescriptive—it prevents local authorities from continuing the support they want to provide to a young person in the hope that it will improve their life chances and steer them away from crime and antisocial behaviour.
	I dealt comprehensively in Committee with the reason the Minister gave why a plan is not suitable in these circumstances—the need to name an educational establishment in the plan—and I hope he has had a chance to look into the role that virtual academies and courses can play, and at the great work the Nisai Virtual Academy is already doing in this area.
	Labour voted against clause 30 in Committee and will be tempted to do so again if the hon. Member for South Swindon wishes to test the will of the House, but I sincerely hope the Minister will respond positively and give us both an assurance that the Government will
	remove the clause at a later stage. If it is not removed, I fear it will face even tougher opposition from the noble Lords in the other place.
	The hon. Member for South Swindon has also tabled amendment 37, which was one of the main bones of contention in Committee. I, like him, believe that education, health and care plans should do what they say on the tin and entitle the holder to expect all of the provisions they detail. At the beginning of this process we fear that they will be no better than the statements they are replacing, and simply provide entitlements to education provision. Ministers had said that there was no way of imposing duties on health bodies to keep up their end of the bargain, but the Minister, to his credit, quickly found a way of placing duties on them to deliver what they are expected to, and improved the plans immeasurably in doing so.
	One piece of the jigsaw remains, however: the social care element. Once again, we have an opportunity in this Bill vastly to improve the rights of children and young people and their families in accessing the services they need. Amendment 37 would add the finishing touch to education, health and care plans by placing a duty on local authorities to secure the social care provision detailed within them, meaning that those plans would provide families with the certainty and confidence they need. I urge the Minister to find a way to make that happen.
	I also support new clause 21, tabled by the hon. Member for South Swindon, on inclusive and accessible services, a subject on which we had a great debate in Committee; his amendment 39, on what constitutes educational support; and amendment 38, which seeks to create a single point of accountability for all three strands of provision within a plan. I look forward to hearing what he has to say about all the new clauses and amendments when he makes what I am sure will be an excellent contribution.
	I also support new clause 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders), which centres on provision in schools for children with medical conditions, and which I and my colleagues tabled in Committee as new clause 19. Some 29,000 children in our schools have diabetes, 1.1 million have asthma, 60,000 have epilepsy and many more have heart conditions or suffer from regular migraines or the after-effects of meningitis or cancer, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami).
	Those children and their parents deserve to know that their school can effectively manage those conditions while they are there; that the child will be given their medication, inhaler or whatever they need whenever they need it; that staff will know when they are being affected by their condition; and that allowances will be made for them where appropriate. We do not have a consistent approach to managing medical conditions in schools as yet, and I agree with the Health Conditions in Schools Alliance that this Bill provides an excellent opportunity for the Government to at least look at how schools support these children and, indeed, at how schools are supported to provide that support. We cannot just expect teachers and school staff to know how to do that as a matter of course. They need help from the NHS, which has the experts.
	We want much stronger assurances on all the issues covered by those amendments than we received in Committee. Otherwise, they will be revisited in the other place. I look forward to hearing those assurances when the Minister gets back to his feet.

Robert Buckland: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who rightly said that the Public Bill Committee not only saw a cross-party coming together of minds, but delivered meaningful scrutiny of probably the most important Bill relating to special educational needs that we will see in a generation. It is 30 years since the Education Act 1981 broke the ground after the noble Baroness Warnock made her recommendations. We are in the unique position as legislators of being able to make a step change for the generations to come. That is why it is incumbent on us all to get the detail right.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his constructive engagement with the debate, and not only in the Public Bill Committee. He has engaged not only with Members of this House, but with the disability sector. He has brought understanding and experience to the deliberations of the Bill, which we have enjoyed. I note with enthusiasm his willingness to improve the Bill. As has rightly been said, the Government have introduced important legal duties on clinical commissioning groups to bolt down the health elements of education, health and care plans. That good work goes on today in the form of further amendments.
	To get to the meat of the matter, I will deal in turn with each of the amendments that I have tabled; my comments have been foreshadowed by those of the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West. I am grateful to her for outlining what I want to say and make no criticism of that at all. Amendment 37, which appears in my name and hers, relates to the social care element of education, health and care plans. It is, as she described it, the last piece in the jigsaw.
	I enjoyed the exchange that I had with the Minister about this matter in Committee. It is correct that the groundbreaking Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 contains an important duty that can be applied to social care services for disabled children. However, there is a danger that in failing to link that existing duty with the duties that we are creating, we will not escape the silo effect of assessments. What do I mean by that? There is a danger that a wholly separate social care assessment will continue to be made, without the global approach that I and the Minister believe is the ethos behind the Bill. It would therefore be a missed opportunity if, for want of a few short amendments, we missed this trick.
	We should look at this matter from the point of view of the parent of a child who comes fresh to a system of which they have no experience. Surely the thrust of our approach must be oriented around not just the child, but their family. We have heard many stories—I speak from experience—of parents having to reinvent the wheel every time they engage with a separate part of local provision. We must all seek to avoid that. That is why I commend the wording of amendment 37, which would do much to tie together the assessment process in the way that I have described.
	On a related theme, and with regard to the point of view of parents and families, amendment 38 deals with the right of appeal against decisions that are made about the creation and ambit of education, health and care plans. The Bill allows the first-tier special educational needs and disability tribunal to hear appeals only about the education aspects of the plan. That means that it covers only part of the plan. I worry that we could end up with a complex and bureaucratic system in which challenges to the health and social care aspects of provision have to be conducted simultaneously through different tribunals, procedures and processes.
	I noted with encouragement the Minister’s comments in Committee. I know that the draft code of practice, which is helpfully published alongside the Bill and will be consulted on later this year, states that having a single point of redress for all the provisions in an education, health and care plan would be helpful. He said in Committee that the existing complaints procedures in health and social care meant that it would be unnecessary to extend the powers of the tribunal. However, he made the important concession that a single point of reference would be desirable. That is helpful.

Neil Carmichael: When the Education Committee considered that aspect of the measures during pre-legislative scrutiny, two issues arose. The first was the difference in culture between education and health. I wonder whether my hon. Friend wants to comment on that, given that we expect education and health bodies to work together and that any accountability process could be complicated. The second issue was that health would have to take the lead in some cases because it would have the overwhelming portion of the responsibility, but the Bill focuses on education.

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he makes an important umbrella point about the difficulties that could be encountered and that—dare I say it—could be exploited by clever lawyers. I often say that and I have to remind the House that, although I am not sure that I am clever, I must admit that I am of the legal profession. It is proper to concede that point against my profession, because lawyers will be instructed by local authorities that need to conserve their resources and will increasingly look to discharge their statutory duties, but to go no further. We have to avoid the scenario of families having to wait for provision while lawyers dance on the head of a pin over costly and unnecessary arguments.

Dan Rogerson: I am grateful for the huge amount of work that the hon. Gentleman has done on this subject during the passage of the Bill and elsewhere. He is making a strong argument for a unified appeals process. There is strong logic, which has been pursued by the Minister and his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), for bringing the processes together so that families who are looking for support have one point of contact or one meeting to attend. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the current tribunal process is not the right way to achieve that, the Government can continue to consider the matter as the evidence comes back from the pilot?

Robert Buckland: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He makes an important point about a common entry point for families. That is
	a good start, but more needs to be done to build on it. To be frank, it may not be necessary to do that through primary legislation and the rules of the tribunals might be used. That would be a matter for Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. I know my hon. Friend is liaising with counterparts in the Ministry of Justice on other matters that I shall come on to, and I sure he will also give this issue careful and anxious thought.
	At the moment, clause 50(4)(a) allows
	“other matters relating to EHC plans against which appeals may be brought;”
	to be added to the jurisdiction of the tribunal. To be fair to my hon. Friend, there does seem to be a power within the Bill, but it would be wise to go just one furlong further and make it absolutely clear to the families we represent that simplicity is the order of the day when it comes to people’s rights to challenge decisions that—let us not forget this—will affect the life course of the young people we are dealing with.
	Let me move on to a rather interesting—well, I hope so—and important matter. Having to admit to being a lawyer is not popular in this House, but words are important and if we change the meaning of something, once again the lawyers will jump all over it. In that spirit, let us consider amendment 39, which relates to the position of current case law, and the synthesis between health care provision, social care provision and education—a point that returns to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael). The Government’s intention seems clear: they wish to replicate current case law when it comes to how local authorities judge their responsibility to make provision in that area. Clause 21 includes the words
	“wholly or mainly for the purposes of education”,
	and I share the concern that the words “wholly or mainly” set a different and higher threshold than is currently set out in case law. In the 1999 Bromley case, Lord Justice Sedley spoke about a case-by-case analysis of particular applications, rather than a general principle as seems to be suggested by the clause. We should therefore consider a spectrum or range of provision from purely medical to purely educational need. A large number of cases will fall inside that spectrum, bearing in mind the common and well-understood scenario that with a particular need often comes a co-morbid need—a special educational need will often be accompanied by a health need as well.

Stewart Jackson: I strongly support the points that my hon. Friend is making eloquently and with his normal charm, especially as they relate to particular groups. I speak from my experience of working with children who have Tourette’s. That is one of the most obvious examples of co-morbidities and, for want of a better expression, people fall through the cracks in current legislation and are often failed by educational or health provision. The amendment seeks to ameliorate that difficult situation.

Robert Buckland: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to him for the work he does with a very challenging condition. A lot of people think Tourette’s syndrome is a funny thing, but for those who suffer from it, it is a challenging and difficult condition
	that is often misunderstood by members of the public. Perhaps I should pause for a moment and pay tribute to the families and carers who, day in, day out, have to put up with ill-informed and quite frankly abusive comments from members of the public who should know better, whether those parents are taking their child to use a disabled lavatory in a supermarket or going to the cinema and trying to enjoy a film with their child who may have a special need that means they make a lot of noise or have to move about. We still have a long way to go in society to achieve general understanding among a wider section of the public about what it is like to live with a child who has special needs. It is good that an increasing number of towns offer autism-friendly cinema screenings, for example, that allow people to sit in comfort on a Sunday afternoon without needing to have eyes in the back of their head or worrying about what somebody else will say about their child. I have parenthesised a little, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.
	I was talking about “wholly or mainly” and the concern shared by many people that we could end up with a wholly artificial argument about a particular type of provision falling between two stools. Thankfully, it has been made clear on case authority that speech and language therapy would be an educational need, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) said, in a number of examples there will be less clarity and an ugly argument could break out between the health service and the local authority about who is responsible for what.

Alison Seabeck: It has been interesting to listen to the hon. Gentleman and his expert comments. Does he accept that young people with disabilities often drift into having mental health problems at different levels, and that that group faces enormous problems? We know that there is often a lot of difficulty in the education and health services when deciding who should manage those young people.

Robert Buckland: That is absolutely correct, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Sadly, mental health issues are a co-morbidity that becomes prevalent if, for example, a condition such as autism is not identified at an early age. It is a tragedy that so many young people who have autism or Asperger’s-related conditions end up with a mental health problem because their condition is not diagnosed or has been misunderstood or in some cases mistreated. I pay tribute, however, to child and adolescent mental health services that do the job well, understand the needs of people with pre-existing conditions, and adapt their services accordingly. A visit to a CAMHS unit can be quite a regressive experience for a young person with autism, which is why adapting services around the child or young person is so important.

Jesse Norman: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. Does he share my view that, as with the local offer, it is important to avoid confusion between two things—educational provision for local students and educational provision available in the local area? With some conditions, the local area simply might not be capable of providing the educational specialist provision that would be available from national providers.

Robert Buckland: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know represents a wonderful special college in Hereford that does tremendous work, not just on a local basis but on a wider basis. He brings a different strand to some of our debates about the need to ensure that, where necessary, there will still be placements well out of the borough, county or district in which young people live. Colleges such as the one my hon. Friend admirably represents fulfil that need and gap and must be part of our provision.

Jesse Norman: rose—

Tom Clarke: rose—

Stephen McPartland: rose—

Robert Buckland: I will give way one more time to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) and then to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke).

Jesse Norman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. He is right to say that the Royal National College for the Blind is an extraordinary institution, in part because it provides, through its own specialist skills, the kind of holistic understanding of how educational and health care needs can come together. That is one reason why it is such an extraordinary and special place and why it must be preserved amid all the other things the Bill seeks to achieve.

Robert Buckland: I cannot improve upon perfection.

Tom Clarke: In arguing powerfully, as he is, for a holistic approach, including for education, does the hon. Gentleman accept that that can impact on the later lives of such young people, particularly with issues such as employment?

Robert Buckland: It is a pleasure to serve in the House with the right hon. Gentleman, who has a long and honourable track record of campaigning for young people and adults with disability. He understands very well from his experience that the repercussions of decisions made at that stage in life echo down the years. We mentioned mental health and employment prospects. Only one in four young people with autism get into employment. I believe we can improve on that shameful statistic. I know there is a will among Ministers, including the noble Lord Freud, to change that, which I believe we can do.

Graham Stuart: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Robert Buckland: I will give way to my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Education Committee.

Graham Stuart: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a powerful speech. I wonder whether he is right to propose removing “wholly or mainly”, because the Bill would read:
	“Health care provision or social care provision which is made…for the purposes of the education or training of a child”.
	Such provision does not have to be made for that purpose to be significant to the education or training of a child. I put it to the Minister that a better wording would result in provision that is significant to the education or training of a child or young person being treated as special educational provision. It would capture that which is important to deliver the education a child needs. The original motivator is not the key point.

Robert Buckland: I do not claim a monopoly of wisdom on the precise wording, but it is important to go back to the case law—London Borough of Bromley v. the SEN tribunal in 1999, in which Lord Justice Sedley stated:
	“Special educational provision is, in principle, whatever is called for by a child’s learning difficulty,”
	which he goes on to define. He states:
	“What is special about special educational provision is that it is additional to or different from ordinary educational provision”.
	In that phrase, we have a more fundamental definition. Provision is not what is significant, but whatever is necessary. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for looking at that. My hon. Friend the Minister is listening carefully. Either in this House or in the other place, we need to achieve clarity and a replication of the words of the Lord Justice of Appeal, so that we do not end up moving away from the Government’s clearly stated intention.

Jesse Norman: Does my hon. Friend share my view that, to be effective and to respect that leading judgment, the idea of a local offer must include national providers? The judgment is not delimited by location; it merely says that provision should be whatever is necessary. A national provision is sometimes the correct option for a person with special needs.

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend is right. Low-incidence special needs can be catered for only by specialist colleges such as the one he represents—another college in Loughborough offers wonderful provision on a national basis.

Stephen McPartland: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend has been very patient, so I shall let him intervene.

Stephen McPartland: I thank my hon. Friend very much for giving way. I am interested in the other end of the spectrum—pre-school children and the tension between education and health. In Stevenage, we have a nursery called Tracks, which provides education support for pre-school children with autism. The local education authority does not recognise that such children could have autism, so parents waste a year or two of normal school time while they persuade the authority that their child has autism.

Robert Buckland: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who, in effect, gives us a case study. He reminds me that I want to draw back to what we were discussing. I have a hypothetical case study before me. A young 15-year-old with Asperger’s and co-occurring mental health difficulties receives cognitive behavioural therapy. Before starting that therapy, his attendance at school was low, attending as few as two days a week, but with
	the help of the therapy he attends more like four days a week. His conditions have a huge effect on his home life and the quality of relations with his parents and wider family.
	Under the new system, it is not clear whether that young man’s cognitive behavioural therapy would be deemed
	“wholly or mainly for the purposes of…education”.
	Without it, he could not access education, because he would not attend regularly. We need to answer that question. We do not want to put such people in that position, or to have artificial debates on what the law means.

Neil Carmichael: My hon. Friend is making an outstanding speech on a critical issue. I want to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on the importance of access to national facilities, because we must not localise provision at the expense of national organisations. Ruskin Mill in my constituency, and the National Star College in my county, provide expertise that we do not necessarily find elsewhere that is critical to young people’s futures. I want to put down a strong marker that we should ensure that national facilities are not put at risk through the funding—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. We are drifting now. Interventions are supposed to be short points that are relevant to the speech at the time they are made. If Members want to contribute, they can. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) has had the floor for some time, and other hon. Members wish to speak in this important debate. Despite his generosity in giving way, I am sure he is probably coming towards the end of what he wishes to say in this part of the debate.

Robert Buckland: I am extremely grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Your exhortation allows me to move on to the other amendments in my name, which I will deal with as expeditiously as I can.
	Amendments 40 to 43 deal with young people over 18. The extension of legal protections for young people with SEN up to 25, which is at the heart of the Bill, is warmly welcome. However, the Bill states a number of times that local authorities “must have regard to” a young person’s age when making decisions on the support they receive after they are 18. We understand that the extension of provision to 25 does not create a blanket right to education for all young people with SEN, but we are concerned that the current drafting could give another get-out to local authorities, which could use the fact that a young person was over 18 to deny them support. Therefore, I suggest the removal of the phrase
	“must have regard to his or her age”
	to avoid that unintentional consequence.
	Amendment 44 relates to the duty of health commissioners. As I have said, I welcome that extension, which is a significant improvement, and which breaks the problem of the silo effect on education and health care plans. However, in the amendment, I am asking
	whether the provision goes far enough. Clause 37(2)(d) places a duty on local authorities to include in the plans health provision that is “reasonably required” by a child or young person. With clever lawyers, arguments could arise over the meaning of “reasonably”. We should therefore delete that word.
	Clause 37(2)(d) also states that health services that must be included in the EHC plan must be linked to the
	“learning difficulties and disabilities which result in”
	the special educational needs of
	“the child or young person.”
	In other words, the health provision must be linked to the specific impairment that has resulted in the child or young person being considered to have SEN. If the health need is not specifically linked, it does not need to be included. The danger is that limiting the requirement could result in confusion and, bluntly, injustice. For example, if a child with Down’s syndrome has a related heart condition, health provision needed to support their medical needs would need to be included in the EHC plan. However, if a child with Down’s syndrome has chronic asthma, which is unrelated to their Down’s and does not result in the SEN, there is no requirement to include the medical need in the plan. Such a distinction works against the Government’s intention to create a co-ordinated system. Once again, energy is being wasted on arguments about what is related to the special need. Let us try to cut the Gordian knot and deal with the issue in a straightforward way that does not create confusion and the potential for litigation.
	Amendment 45 relates to our debate on the status of higher education institutions and their inclusion in the new framework. It is welcome that further education will be part of the spectrum of provision. It is right to say that many universities already meet the needs of disabled young people well, with the provision of disabled students allowance and other assistance. However, we still hear far too many stories about disabled students having to battle to get the wider support they need to access higher education and the problems they face in securing support from local health and social care services. The current proposals stop once a young person goes into higher education. Therefore, there is a concern that more needs to be done to include universities. Again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister. He rightly acknowledged the need for further discussions with universities, and I know he will look carefully at our submissions.
	Amendment 46 relates to accountability for the local offer, which is one of the cornerstones of the Bill. That has to mean something for families and young people, so the question of accountability is key.

Jonathan Reynolds: This is a particularly important amendment, among the many that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I strongly agree that this duty is extremely important in making the local offer meaningful. I hope the Government will listen to the support for the duty, as well as to the representations that I am sure will be made in the other place. In making this contribution, I draw the attention of the House to my declaration of interest.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) gets to his feet again I have to say that he has now been speaking for 32 minutes. Other Members wish to speak, so I hope he will draw his remarks to a conclusion soon—in the next 60 seconds—so we can move on to other contributions to this important debate.

Robert Buckland: I bear your strictures seriously, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I pray in aid remarks I have made in the past on the importance of the accountability of the local offer, and echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on clause 69. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to redouble his efforts with the Ministry of Justice, so that clause 69 is expunged from the Bill when it returns to this House.
	May I very briefly mention new clause 21, which is part of this group? It relates to the duty to ensure that there is inclusion for children and young people. That must not just be a comfortable word that we in this place all use—it has to mean something. In transforming local services, we must stop making an assumption, even for children and young people in special schools, that there will not be times when they will want to access mainstream services. I should add that a large number of children with special needs currently enjoy mainstream education with appropriate support. We need to underpin the spectrum of provision, whether in the form of education or other local provisions, which is why I commend new clause 21, which was tabled with my colleagues on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the hon. Members for Aberavon (Dr Francis) and for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma).
	I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to address the House at some length. I apologise for that, but this is an important Bill. We have got to get it right.

Tom Clarke: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland). For politicians these days, a few kind words go a long way. I congratulate him on his effective work on autism. The House will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to speak for long, as there is so much business today, but I wish to focus on amendments 46, 66, 67, 68 and 69. If I find myself on a different path, I am sure you will keep me in order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I would like to pick up on comments made on both sides of the House. I thank sincerely my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who led for the Opposition. She rightly focused on education, which is vital in bringing out the talents and abilities of children, and recognised that these issues should, at every level—for education, certainly, but also employment, health matters and so on—be person-centred. My hon. Friend will agree when I say that disabled people are one of the groups that are the furthest away from the employment market, and education has an impact on that. Disabled people are twice as likely to be unemployed as their non-disabled peers. In 2012, the Office for Disability Issues estimated that 46% of working age disabled people are in employment, compared with 76% of working age non-disabled people.
	My hon. Friend and other hon. Members were absolutely right to focus on the big issues that have an impact on those with learning disabilities.
	I am joint chair, with Lord Rix, of the all-party group on learning disability. We have achieved a great deal, but we still have much more to do. One of the key features of the Bill, for example, under clause 19 is the move to involve young people and children under the age of 16 in decisions about their special educational needs provision. Children and young people with special educational needs, particularly those with a learning disability, have trouble reading and understanding material unless it is fully effective, and that applies to Braille and other things.
	Although localism is appropriate and schools should be judged on how well they are doing, there nevertheless ought to be standards that are accepted across the whole of the UK. I remind the House, as a Scottish Member, that although these matters have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the annual economic and fiscal settlement has to bear the Barnett formula in mind, so it is as appropriate to discuss these issues in England as it is in the devolved institutions.
	It is essential that any information for, or consultation with, people with a learning disability is accessible and meaningful to ensure effective participation and involvement. Mencap has highlighted that this means using easy read formats for blind or partially sighted people. Organisations such as Scope point out that such necessities should not be a postcode lottery, as my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West also rightly said. This is the challenge before us. I am a little envious that I was not on the Committee, because I am sure that its considerations were thoughtful and progressive, and I congratulate it on its work.
	I would like to conclude on this note. On the issues that we are dealing with—education, health, care and social matters—coming back to the child and the family is vital. Before I sit down, I shall give one example. A few years ago, I was invited to an exhibition in Glasgow organised by the National Autistic Society demonstrating some of the wonderful work in art and music that young people with autism were nevertheless able to produce. The VIPs opening the exhibition stood beside a particularly impressive painting, but as we listened to the speeches we were discouraged by the noise that one of the children was making, until we realised that this beautiful painting, which we had all admired, was painted by that young woman. That is the opportunity. We can do it. We can deliver for special educational needs. I hope that as the Bill progresses through both Houses, it will be seen as a major step in that noble direction.

Graham Stuart: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) and the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke). The right hon. Gentleman’s final point was right: this is a flagship Bill. Just as the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 turned out to be an historic step forward and a great achievement by the then Conservative Government, so I think this flagship Bill will be a great achievement of this coalition Government. It is symbolic that the Minister’s predecessor was a Liberal Democrat and that he has carried the Bill forward.
	I know that we have limited time but I want to make a few comments. I was a little sceptical at the beginning of this process, and I remain worried that we might create a level of expectation among parents greater than the Bill can deliver, especially in this time of austerity, not least for local government budgets, but my scepticism and doubt have been eroded over time. The way successive Ministers have worked and the way the Bill has taken shape gives me hope that it can be as significant for children with special educational needs as the Disability Discrimination Act was for those with disabilities.
	I wish to speak to my amendments 59 to 64, but first I want to put on the record my thanks to the Minister for his close and courteous co-operation with my Committee. His actions to improve the Bill in response to our recommendations have been appreciated, and he was big enough to list the changes that the Select Committee had suggested and which the Government had adopted. Ministers should not be embarrassed—quite the contrary—to change their proposals on the basis of evidence and submissions from people in the Chamber and outside.
	The Education Committee paid particularly close attention to part 3 of the Bill on children and young people in England with special educational needs. As I say, we welcomed many features of the Bill in our pre-legislative scrutiny, such as the introduction of integrated education, health and care plans and the fact that the new statutory framework for SEN will cover children and young people from birth all the way to age 25. We should not underestimate the significance of these changes. They will deliver a process for assessing and meeting children’s and young people’s individual needs that could be more coherent, comprehensive and compassionate. As always, however, the devil lies in the detail, so my Committee will closely monitor the impact of these changes in practice.
	My amendments have a common theme: to ensure that nothing in the Bill reduces the centrality of parents in making decisions for their children. I am particularly concerned to ensure that local authorities do not use the Bill to seek to change the balance in their relationship with the parents of children with special educational needs. I wish the Bill to enhance, not diminish, the role, power and influence of parents. I have particular concerns about parents who have chosen to educate their children at home. From discussions with the Minister, I know it is not the Government’s intention to undermine the parental role, but unless that is made clear in the Bill, there will always be the risk that these things will creep in.
	That is why I have proposed amendment 59. It would insert a new subsection (e) in clause 19 expressly requiring local authorities to have regard to the right of parents to make their own arrangements for their children, in accordance with the Education Act 1996. Without this, the possibility will remain that local authorities might try to steamroller home-educating parents, who are only trying to do the right thing by their children. I am not saying it will necessarily happen, certainly not in all cases, but it is conceivable. My amendment is intended to prevent the situation from arising, whether through sins of omission or of commission. That is to say, the aim is to prevent local authorities from forgetting that
	parents have the primary responsibility for their child’s education. My amendment would assert that responsibility and the right of families to be free to educate their children independently, if they so wish.
	My concerns about unintended consequences that might be read into the Bill also prompted me to introduce amendments 60 and 61. Clause 22 of the Bill states:
	“A local authority in England must exercise its functions with a view to securing that it identifies all the children and young people in its area who have or may have special educational needs.”
	As worded, this might lead local authorities to believe they must insist on seeing all home-educated children to assess whether they have special educational needs. Members might think such an interpretation perverse, but I know from paying close attention to the interests of home educators over the years that perverse outcomes are not unknown when it comes to local authorities and home-educating families. The current phrasing of the Bill opens the door to it.
	My amendments to clause 23 are designed to focus the authority’s attention where it might reasonably be required, rather than inadvertently implying a duty to screen all children. They would bring this clause into line with clause 24, which employs the phrase “probably has” regarding special educational needs. That is also the phrasing in existing legislation—specifically section 321 of the Education Act—where it has functioned satisfactorily.
	Amendment 62 is designed to underline the importance of parents’ and young people’s roles in developing SEN arrangements with local authorities. Clause 28 lists the local partners with whom local authorities must co-operate in developing local offers. During our pre-legislative scrutiny, the Education Committee heard compelling evidence that parents should be given a clearer mandate in this part of the Bill. This sentiment was expressed by bodies such as the National Autistic Society and the National Network of Parent Carer Forums. Brian Gale of the National Deaf Children’s Society pointed out that the list of local partners overwhelmingly represented the provider interest and did too little to give a voice to children, young people and their parents. Including parent carer forums on the list would improve the situation, so I hope the Minister will give it careful consideration.
	Our inquiry heard how early evidence from pilot schemes and pathfinder work indicated that where local parent carer forums had been actively involved in planning and designing schemes, the work of the pilots had been more solution-focused and more likely to gain the support and confidence of the families taking part. In the section on parent carer forums, the Department’s draft code of practice for SEN acknowledges:
	“Effective parent participation can lead to a better fit between families’ needs and service provision, higher satisfaction with service delivery, reduced service costs (as long term benefits emerge), better value for money decisions and less conflict between providers and those dependent upon services.”
	If the Department knows that to be true, I would urge the Minister to add parent carer forums to the list I mentioned.
	My amendment 63 is similarly designed to safeguard parents’ rights. It would amend the wording of clause 42(5). It outlines the situation where a local authority or a
	health commissioning body is not obliged to arrange the specified educational or health provision set out under an EHC plan. As drafted, these bodies do not have to make provision for a child if the parent has made “suitable alternative arrangements”. This “suitability” requirement implies that someone in authority will have to decide whether the parents’ arrangements are suitable. It is another feast for the lawyers. This requirement would be inherently subjective and risk introducing uncertainty, which the Government are keen to eradicate, into the system My amendment substitutes this phrasing for that of section 7 of the Education Act, which currently already requires such arrangements to be suitable for a child’s age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs. It is a much more specific formulation and will therefore avoid the definitional pitfall.
	My amendment serves a second purpose, by emphasising that clause 42(2) and (3) do not apply when parents have made appropriate arrangements and when they have chosen not to receive assistance with making provision. It is incredibly important that when parents are home educating and seeking to make suitable provision, local authorities do not opt out of offering support. It is essential that they continue to provide that support. They do not have to be in overall control of the situation or in charge before they fulfil that responsibility.
	Finally, my amendment 64 is designed to prevent local authorities from washing their hands of home-educating parents. Clause 45 describes the circumstances in which a local authority may cease to maintain an EHC plan for a child or young person. My amendment would ensure that the Bill expressly provided that local authorities cannot cease to maintain an EHC plan solely because a child or young person is being educated other than at school. In the absence of an EHC plan, local authorities might argue that because a child is out of the school system, they are not under a duty to provide anything and therefore the plan does not need to be maintained. Home-educating families need to be protected against any such reading of the law.
	The amendment again may be accused of taking an unduly pessimistic view of how local authorities may interpret this Bill, but local authorities have a track record of interpreting the rules in ways that best suit their own purposes. They often find home education anomalous and thus something from which they would seek to remove help. Unless protections are built into the Bill, parents of children with SEN will continue to be concerned that they may lose out to unduly officious local town hall bureaucrats. My amendment would put that right and, in doing so, would put the issue beyond all doubt.
	The Minister may suggest that this is a matter for the new SEN code of practice, but experience has made it clear that it is unsafe to rely on guidance where there is ambiguity within the education itself. In education, as elsewhere, one size does not fit all and the Bill should recognise that, build it into the system and provide reassurance to thousands of young people and their parents.
	If I may, I will briefly touch on a couple of other issues. I welcome new clause 8 and congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) on introducing it. Requiring schools to have a robust policy in place to safeguard and support children with health conditions such as asthma and diabetes would represent a positive
	step forward. Many schools have such a policy in place independently but too many do not. Last week, my office met the Crawforth family from my constituency. Their son suffers from type 1 diabetes. He is one of 29,000 children in the UK who live with the condition, yet a study by Diabetes UK in 2009 found that in only 29% of cases did school staff help with insulin injections. In 47 % of cases, someone other than a member of school staff helps the young person with blood glucose testing, including parents in 42% f these cases.

Jim Cunningham: I apologise for coming in a bit late. Some years ago I had a ten-minute rule Bill on this subject and I welcome the fact that the amendment will address it. I would like to put it on record that, as far as I am concerned, this is a welcome amendment.

Graham Stuart: I welcome that intervention.
	These statistics are unacceptable and reflect a situation that places unfair pressure on children, parents and teachers alike. The new clause would require schools to engage directly with parents and to co-operate with local NHS authorities in preparing and implementing strategies to head off these risks. I suggest to the Minister that its inclusion would strengthen the Bill and help end the status quo whereby the quality of support available to children and families coping with conditions such as diabetes is largely a matter of chance.
	I am mindful of your strictures on time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would like to speak in support of amendment No. 43, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland). I am concerned that requiring local authorities to review the continuance of EHC plans for young people aged over 18 with specific regard to their age may make it more likely that support would be curtailed or dropped altogether on the basis that the young person would be deemed to have made the transition into adulthood. This concern is heightened by paragraph 231 of the explanatory notes to the Bill, which explains the thinking behind clause 45. It gives examples of potential stages at which EHC plans can be amended or replaced. These include the end of a specified phase of a young person’s education or when a young person becomes a NEET. This runs contrary to the recommendations made by my Committee in our report, where we acknowledge the particular position of NEETs and apprenticeships and the potential of EHC plans to assist young people with SEN into constructive employment. We recommended that the Bill should provide entitlement to EHC plans both to NEETs of compulsory participation age and to young people who are undertaking apprenticeships.
	We heard from Dai Roberts, the principal of Brokenhurst college, who cited the case of two learners with profound deafness who were then on marine engineering apprenticeships. They had to have signers to help them with their training. These are precisely the young people who need extra support in order to follow their ambitions so they can get on and make a success of their lives. The amendment deserves support and clause 45(4) deserves to be scrapped.
	My final remarks will be on the local offer. Getting that right will be essential to ensuring that the Bill overall helps young people. I am confident that those who get an EHC plan will be in a better situation than
	those under the previous regime of statements. In fact, it is essential to ensure not that it is easier to get a plan—the Minister, surprisingly in my view, said he wanted to make that case. I hope that there will be fewer people having plans than under statements, not because there is an effort to guide them away from them, but because local offers meet so many of the needs of parents and young people that there is not a requirement for the bureaucratic involvement that will be required even in our streamlined EHC system.

John Healey: It is good to follow the Chair of the Select Committee. I hope the constructive and cross-party description that he has given of the passage of the Bill so far means that, as the Bill goes into the other House, many of the amendments that we have discussed today, which clearly need to be made, will be made.
	Before he spoke, we heard two strong—including one long—speeches on special educational needs. I am not going to speak up for children with special educational needs. Instead I would like to speak up for children with specific health conditions and, in particular, to lend my support to new clause 8, which was first tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and now stands in the name of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders).
	Four years ago, I met an inspiring young woman called Emma Smith. She was 12 years old, from Dalton in Rotherham, and I was her MP. She was on a lobby for Diabetes UK to the House. I met her here, and met her and her family at home. I also met a couple of other young children and students at school in Rotherham who were suffering from diabetes. They described a lack of recognition and appreciation by staff at school of their condition and a lack of knowledge about what they had to do to manage it for themselves. They described a suspicion, sometimes, of the needles they had to use to inject insulin. Occasionally there was nowhere for them to do those injections during the school day. They also spoke of friends of theirs with similar problems who had been forbidden from eating or going to the toilet during lessons when they needed to because of their condition. I pledged my support to Emma Smith and her campaign, as I did to the ten-minute rule Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), which he introduced around that time. I thought that my hon. Friend could not be here today, which is why I am in his place, but I am glad to see that he has come into the Chamber.

Mark Tami: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that it is not just about staff? We need to ensure that children—particularly primary school children, who can be scared if they do not know what is going on—have explained to them why a child has to be treated in a certain way. Children can be frightened and misunderstand what is happening.

John Healey: My good and hon. Friend knows exactly what he is talking about and he is right. This is not simply about staff; it is about other students and pupils understanding better the conditions and health problems
	that some children have to cope with and, often, being supportive as a result. I know my hon. Friend speaks from direct experience of such things.
	In considering the case for any new clause or amendment to legislation that the Government produce, there are three conditions that the House ought to expect to be met. By the same token, if the Government continue to resist such amendments, the House should expect them to be able to argue that those conditions are not met. Those three tests are these. Is the change necessary? Is it proportionate? Is it beneficial? Let me deal first with the question of necessity. The problem of other students, fellow pupils, teachers and staff not knowing about the conditions that many children may have makes managing those conditions more difficult. Often it also holds children back at school and it may sometimes even put their health at risk, so better provision, better support and a better policy framework are needed.
	This is not just about children who suffer from diabetes. The Health Conditions in Schools Alliance has said that more than 1 million children suffer from conditions as wide-ranging as diabetes, asthma, heart disease or epilepsy, or are at risk of severe allergic reactions and anaphylaxis. This is a widespread problem that is largely hidden. Almost half the children who suffer from asthma have problems joining in fully in general lessons or even going on school trips. More than a third of children with diabetes say that one or both of their parents have had to give up work entirely or cut back their work to support them at school. Finally, almost two thirds—just under 60%—of schools that have children with diabetes have no policy in place to guide staff on the matter of injections on the premises.

Jim Cunningham: My right hon. Friend will recall that, in addition to educating teachers about children’s conditions, one of the things I proposed in my ten-minute rule Bill some years ago was the creation of school clusters, which would involve somebody with medical experience from the national health service as well as teachers. They would perhaps give talks or inspect the facilities every so often to ensure that teachers were adequately trained.

John Healey: I backed my hon. Friend’s Bill and I remember it. Essentially, it aimed to set standards of support that all schools should have in place and, as I recall, to require Ofsted to monitor and inspect whether they were being met.
	Finally on the question of whether an amendment is necessary, the framework of legislation and guidance already in place—the “Managing medicines in school” guidance, the Equality Act 2010 or even the Children Act 1989—is often said to be sufficient, but these problems are so widespread for so many children that clearly the system as it stands is not working and something else is necessary.
	That brings me to my second point: is the proposed change proportionate? It is simply indefensible to argue that parents should have recourse to invoke the 2010 Act or the 1989 Act to get support for their kids at school. That is disproportionate. New clause 8 does not propose a new policy obligation or new standards for national Government, nor would it require local authorities
	to act. It would not even require health bodies to act, other than to support schools. What new clause 8 proposes is that a school should have
	“a duty to produce and implement a medical conditions policy that defines how it plans to support the needs of children with specified health conditions”—
	no more, no less. In other words, schools should have well-judged, proportionate policies, pitched at where the challenge is greatest and the potential gain most important—that is, in the culture, understanding, practice and sympathy found in schools. We are talking about a policy developed in schools, for schools and by schools, with the support of health bodies and local authorities behind them.
	I have addressed whether the proposed change is necessary and proportionate, but is it beneficial? It would be beneficial if children could go to school confident in the knowledge that those around them understood their conditions. It would be likely to make managing their conditions easier, allow them to play a much fuller part in the life of the school and fulfil more of their potential, reduce the requirement on parents to give up or reduce their work—and, arguably therefore, to step up their dependence on the state to support their kids in school—and reduce the demands on the NHS, so the proposal is beneficial as well.
	Is this change necessary? Yes. Is it proportionate? Yes. Is it beneficial? Yes, and if the Minister continues to resist it, he will have to demonstrate that it is unnecessary, disproportionate and either detrimental or not beneficial. I want our children who have special health conditions to be able to enjoy school to the full, to fulfil their potential and to feel confident that those around them know what to do because they understand their conditions.
	Finally, I want to leave the House with the words that I always remember Emma Smith saying to me: “I would feel a lot happier if people at school knew what to do if for any reason I was unable to treat myself.” That seems to be the very least that this House and this legislation should provide.

Adrian Sanders: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who summed up what many parents at various lobbies of this place have said over a number of years, not least last week, when children with type 1 diabetes came to Parliament to lobby their Members.
	New clause 8 stands in my name and that of other hon. Members and was originally tabled by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). It seeks to improve the consideration that schools give to students with long-term conditions, including diabetes, epilepsy, asthma and many less prevalent but equally serious illnesses. We have heard that around 29,000 children in the UK have type 1 diabetes. Through my work as chair of the all-party group on diabetes, I have become painfully aware that, despite great improvements in recent years in care for young people with diabetes, something of a blind spot remains in schools, with staff often unaware of the implications of the disease, let alone able to help children with their condition. This leads to all sorts of problems that are, at root, preventable.
	At the centre is the impact on child health. A school environment that does not include basic precautions or simple awareness training can lead to complications
	arising from diabetes. For example, a child experiencing hyperglycemia is at risk of diabetic ketoacidosis, a potentially fatal complication. More than 3,000 children experience this every year, at significant cost to the health care system and obviously considerable anxiety to parents and families, most tragically in the 2% of cases that result in death. Anything we can do to reduce this prevalence must be imperative.
	There are more general problems, however. All too often, schools do not have adequate plans in place to deal with the day-to-day needs of those with long-term conditions. That leads to children being made to feel separate and neglected, leaving them more open to bullying, and can also have a detrimental impact on their education. Diabetes and other long-term conditions should have no impact on a child’s ability to learn—they do not have special educational needs—but if those conditions are not managed appropriately in the classroom, they will impede a child’s education.
	Ideally, schools should acknowledge that they are looking after a wide range of pupils with varying needs, and staff should have in place a robust plan that has been agreed with parents and health care professionals to prevent the time-consuming and expensive problems that will be inevitable without this investment in planning. I fully anticipate the Minister saying that it is up to schools to decide how to achieve this, and I agree, but we also have a responsibility at national level to ensure that schools do that, and that parents have the scope to force the reappraisal of a situation if it is found wanting. The plans need to be put in place on an individual basis, however. It is striking that the subject that the public most frequently raise with me, as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on a condition that affects more than 3 million adults, is the poor level of support offered in schools to the 30,000 children who are also affected by it.

Jim Cunningham: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on tabling the new clause. He will be aware that there are specialist colleges, such as Hereward college in Coventry, that would benefit from his proposals. Further down the road, some of these children will have the confidence to go into further education, and they will particularly benefit from those specialist colleges. In that context, the Government should look again at the cuts to the budgets for those colleges.

Adrian Sanders: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I also congratulate him on the ten-minute rule Bill on this subject that he introduced a little while ago.
	Last week, I attended a diabetes event, and I heard an account from a parent from the north of England that succinctly summed up the experience of all too many parents, wherever they live. Her son was just starting primary school and, in the previous July, the diabetic specialist nurse had visited the school to put a necessary care plan in place. It was clear on the first day of school that the plan was inadequate. According to the parent, it was not worth the paper it was written on, and was certainly not suitable for a four-year-old. Importantly, it stated that the child should test his own blood levels—something he had never done before and something that no one would expect a four-year-old to have to do. The plan also had no guidelines for emergencies.
	Despite the parents providing a new plan for the school, the child’s first six months of school were filled with phone calls home and teachers holding his hand throughout the day, even taking him out of the classroom frequently as though he were a ticking time bomb. This caused a massive amount of stress and inconvenience to the parents. Schools need to recognise that, beyond the health condition, these are normal children who need to be treated normally but with sensible and reasonable adjustments and awareness to maintain the normality as much as possible.

Mark Tami: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the so-called special treatment that such children get, involving missing lessons and sometimes taking days off school, can sometimes lead other children to believe that they are different, and that that perception of special treatment can lead to bullying?

Adrian Sanders: Indeed; I referred to the danger of bullying earlier. Diabetic children do not need to be taken out of class; they simply need a hygienic environment in which to test their blood sugar levels during the day, and to be allowed to eat in the classroom, or go outside to eat, in order to boost their blood sugar levels. It helps everyone if the staff understand those needs and explain them to other pupils. In that way, the children can learn that many of us will have a medical condition—not necessarily diabetes—at some time in our life. There is a whole spectrum of medical conditions, and treating children who suffer from them separately is worse than providing for them within the mainstream and within the normal school settings. All that is needed is a willingness for schools to put in the effort and to look at best practice while listening to parents. A reminder in the Bill that that is important would go some way towards reassuring tens of thousands of anxious parents.

Caroline Nokes: Given your previous encouragement for speakers in the debate to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will try to do so. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders), who has spoken on the specific issue of diabetes in schools. I was contacted only last week by a family in Romsey whose four-year-old son is due to start school in September. They had been told that, should he feel a “hypo” coming on, it would be his responsibility to get himself to the school office, where he could be tested and the appropriate treatment administered.
	I commend to the House the work of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation in encouraging local education authorities to put in place protocols and care plans so that schools can be made aware of the appropriate treatment and teachers can be properly informed about addressing the problem. This is particularly important for those dealing with very young children, for whom needles and testing kits might still be a relatively strange and foreign concept. Older teenagers might have become accustomed to them.
	I want to take this opportunity to mention the work of the Bill Committee, of the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe
	and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), and of the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). Our discussions were always undertaken in a consensual and collaborative manner. A lot of amendments were tabled but many were not pressed to a vote because we were able to come to an agreement on them. I commend the work done by the Minister in outlining exactly what the Government were seeking to do in the Bill, so we could reach agreement on areas of particular concern to us.
	I should also like to commend my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), who has done an enormous amount of work in the field of special educational needs. He illustrated earlier the depth of his knowledge and understanding, and he has done fantastic work to highlight the difficulties faced by parents and families in relation to assessment. In Committee, we often used the words “fight” and “battle” when discussing the struggles that families went through to ensure that their child had an appropriate assessment and statement to address their needs. I hope the Bill, and the education, health and care plans, will remove some of that necessity to fight, and make things a great deal easier.
	In Committee, I mentioned a specific subject, and I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State has taken it up. My constituency has a significant number of military families who, by dint of their career paths, are frequently moved around the country. A disproportionate number of those families with children with special educational needs, having secured a statement in one part of the country, are then moved elsewhere through no fault of their own. This can result in their having to go back to square one in the process. I am therefore delighted that new clause 9 takes account of that in seeking to make the EHC plans far more portable, so that families who have already been through that struggle do not have to revisit it.
	There are many reasons for a family moving. I have mentioned military families because of my constituency interest, but I have also done a massive amount of work with an organisation called Ambitious about Autism, which runs the excellent TreeHouse school in north London. In highlighting to me the difficulties that families face if they seek to move to a different area, it has specifically mentioned the case of one young boy, Mohammed. He is 12 years old, and has autism and complex learning difficulties.
	Mohammed’s family live in Westminster and he travels every day to the TreeHouse school, which is a considerable distance away. His family were desperate to buy their own property, and as Westminster is a phenomenally expensive borough to live in, they were hoping to move to another part of London. They felt constrained from doing so, however, because they felt that if they left Westminster, where they had secured Mohammed’s statement, they would have difficulty in ensuring that their new borough would continue to provide for his education at TreeHouse school. Such was the importance to him of that school that they were not prepared to put his education at risk. Instead, they have continued to rent a home in Westminster, even though their long-term plan was to move out of the borough and further away.
	I promised to keep my comments brief, and I think I have managed to speak for only four minutes. I would like to thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for
	having tabled the new clause. Portability and an ability to recognise care plans across different local authorities will be of critical importance to all those families who have struggled to ensure that their children get the provision they need.

Edward Timpson: I thank my hon. Friends the Members for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) and for Torbay (Mr Sanders) and the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) for the amendments they tabled. I thank in particular the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for embodying in her approach the very essence of this part of the Bill, in that she has demonstrated a lot of co-operation and constructive consultation and has, I suspect, sometimes strayed into the occasional bit of joint commissioning, which I welcome. I also thank other Members who have spoken in this debate on the SEN provisions. I will do my best to respond to the amendments and the key points that have been made.
	Amendments 30, 46, 62 and 66 to 69 and new clause 21 are concerned with arrangements for improving local provision. I hope I will be able to address the concerns that are behind amendment 30—as just raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North—through regulations and the code of practice. Draft regulations under clause 48 would require local authorities to provide information, advice and support in relation to personal budgets, including information about independent organisations. Draft regulations made under clause 36 would require local authorities to provide any support they consider necessary for parents or young people to take part effectively in the education, health and care assessment, and regulations made under clause 30 would require local authorities to include in their local offer sources of information, advice and support for children and young people with special educational needs and their families. The indicative code of practice—which my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon helpfully pointed out was made available in Committee and proved invaluable as a consequence—clarifies that this should include information, advice and support available in relation to personal budgets.
	I share the aim of my hon. Friend’s amendment 46, which is to ensure that education and social care provision is sufficient to meet the needs of children and young people with SEN and to promote improvements in that provision, but that should be balanced with the need to retain local decision making; that point seemed to unite the House in the debate we have just had. Local authorities, schools and other services must determine spending on provision for children and young people with special educational needs, taking account of their legal responsibilities. Clause 27(3) would require local authorities to consult a wide range of people and organisations in reviewing provision, including, importantly, children and young people with special educational needs and their parents, but placing a specific legal duty on them to improve special educational and social care provision until everyone consulted agrees it is sufficient would be impractical, as views of different people and groups would inevitably differ. Local authorities will be able to reflect the outcomes of the reviews they undertake under clause 27 in the local offer, which also requires
	the close involvement of children and young people with special educational needs and their parents in its development and review.
	On amendments 66 to 69, I can assure the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West and other hon. Members that the local offer will not be a speculative document. It will set out what the local authority expects will actually be available. The local authority does not have control of all the services set out in the local offer, so it can only set out what it expects to be available. If it can only reflect what is currently available, that will prevent the local offer from setting out, for example, what provision it expects to become available in the near future. This could, for example, include new provision in a school, which parents or young people will want to know about in advance.
	On amendment 68, I agree that online communities can be a valuable way to socialise, and perhaps that is especially true for young people with special needs. Only yesterday I had the opportunity to visit Springfield special school in my constituency. The children being educated there were keen to show me first their school’s IT suite, where they had developed some important skills in a number of innovative ways. I agree that online communities have their dangers, and that young people should be equipped to socialise over the internet safely. I repeat the commitment I gave in Committee: I will consider including a reference to online communities in the code, in the context of preparing for adulthood. I do not believe it is necessary to amend the Bill in order to achieve what Members want, but I think what I have said demonstrates the importance of this area both now and in the future.
	Amendment 69 concerns minimum standards in the local offer. The key to the success of the local offer in each area will be the transparency of information, and the involvement of local parents, children and young people in developing and reviewing the local offer. Central prescription would stifle the very innovation and responsiveness we want to see the local offer trigger, and stipulating minimum standards for the local offer would weaken local accountability. They would constrain parents’ ability to influence a local authority, which could point to meeting minimum requirements to end further discussion. That is a potential “race to the bottom” that we must avoid; my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon raised that point in Committee. I hope that detail about what will be in the offer and the strength of the processes for agreeing it will reassure Members that such a potentially counter-productive minimum standard is not necessary.
	Amendment 62, from my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness, the Chair of the Education Committee, reflects the view expressed by his Committee about the importance of parent carer forums, whose national network I believe I am meeting tomorrow. I share my hon. Friend’s views about the importance of parents helping to shape local policies for supporting children and young people with special educational needs. The indicative SEN code of practice makes clear reference to that and to the value of parent carer forums, but as they are not legally constituted bodies we cannot include them in the list in clause 28 of organisations with which a local authority must consult when carrying out its functions under the Bill.
	Provision has been made in clause 27 for local authorities to consult children and young people with special educational needs and parents of children with SEN, along with
	“such other persons as the authority thinks appropriate”,
	when carrying out their statutory duty to keep their special educational provision and social care provision under review. I am sure that local authorities will want to consult parent carer forums as they carry out that duty, which is reflected in the draft code of practice. The SE7 pathfinder, for example, is working closely with its local parent carer forums to develop the local offer, to ensure that it reflects the needs of children, young people and parents.
	Turning to new clause 21, local authorities aim to provide services close to home, and I know how important it is for families for provision to be made locally. However, as has been said, that is not always practical for those who require specialist support that is available only in very few places. Clause 27 requires local authorities to consult children and young people with special educational needs and their parents when they are reviewing their special educational provision and social care provision. Local authorities, clinical commissioning groups and NHS England must develop effective ways of harnessing the views of their local communities, and they will undoubtedly want to engage with Healthwatch organisations, patient representative groups, parent partnerships, parent carer forums and other local voluntary organisations and community groups.
	Clause 30 requires local authorities to involve children and young people with special educational needs and their parents in developing and reviewing the local offer. That will ensure a continuing dialogue between local authorities and their partners, including children, young people and families, and keep a focus on the need for local provision. I recently discussed these issues with Scope, which has a good deal of experience in this area, and undertook to consider how the guidance in the SEN code of practice could best encourage the development of services that are responsive to local needs.
	I shall now deal with amendments 44, 37 and 39, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon, which are all concerned with ensuring an integrated approach to meeting the needs of children and young people. I share the goal of amendment 44—integrated health and social care support—but cannot agree that it is the best way to achieve it. Under the Bill, the support that must be available to the child or young person is that reasonably required by his or her special educational needs.
	Local authorities and health commissioners have the power to include other social and health care if they feel it is appropriate. So a child with special educational needs arising from cerebral palsy who needs a wheelchair would have that in their plan. If the child developed an unrelated minor infection, any prescribed medication would not normally be included. Amendment 44 would add unnecessary bureaucracy and hinder pragmatic decision making. I am alive to the case studies that my hon. Friend brought to the House’s attention and will look carefully at them in understanding the consequences
	of the point he makes. I am happy to continue to discuss that with him, but as things stand I am not convinced that his amendment is necessary.
	Amendment 37 seeks a specific duty on authorities to deliver social care provision in EHC plans. As I said in Committee, existing duties in section 17 of the Children Act 1989 provide important protections. I understand concerns that this is a general, not an individual duty, but I fully expect that local authorities will provide care services to meet assessed needs. In the case of disabled children, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 applies, and once the authority is satisfied it is necessary to provide support and assistance, it is required to do just that. I do not think it right to prioritise, as a matter of course, children with EHC plans over all other children in need, who would then risk being marginalised—I am thinking, for example, of children suffering neglect or abuse.
	On amendment 39, I know that my hon. Friend has concerns about clause 21, and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), among others, has also raised this issue. Clause 21(5) fulfils an undertaking I gave during pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill that we would maintain existing protections, including case law. The subsection was included to preserve the current position whereby, of course, there is no duty to secure the health provision in plans. Amendment 39 goes further than current case law and would define all social care and health care provision made for a child or young person with SEN as special educational provision, if it was in some way for the purposes of education or training.
	I have looked again at clause 21, taking account of the views put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon and others. Under the broader, integrated assessments and plans in the Bill, decisions will be between special educational, health and care provision. Without clause 21(5) it may be difficult for a tribunal to say that although speech and language therapy is health care provision made by health care providers, it is in fact special educational provision. The clause also enables appeals to the tribunal in respect of health provision where it is defined as special educational provision, as now. However, as my hon. Friend said at the end of his excellent contribution, we want to get things right, so I am content to continue to listen to the views expressed in the House, such as the wording suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness, and in the other place.
	On personal budgets, we debated amendment 70 in Committee and I repeat the assurances I gave then. As I said to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West in Committee, we will take full account of the findings of the pilot scheme as a discrete element of the pathfinder evaluation, and learning will inform the SEN code of practice. I assure her that the cases we have seen to date do not show any negative impacts in the areas referred to in the amendment; they actually show how local authorities can work with schools to improve the quality of provision received without having an impact on the other children and young people. As I am sure she would agree, that is an encouraging picture.
	Amendment 38 is a repeat of the probing amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon moved in Committee and of the proposed new clause 24 tabled by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West. In Committee, I set out the well-established complaint procedures for complaints about health and social care. Widening the tribunal’s remit would not prevent the existing mechanisms from continuing to be available. The effect of the amendment would be to add to the routes of redress, rather than to simplify them. We are preserving the right to appeal to the tribunal about health and social care provision, where that is mainly for the purposes of education and training. While strengthening the role of health and social care in the assessment process and laying a new duty to provide the health provision set out in a plan, we have maintained the focus on special educational provision in the Bill and as was set out in the Green Paper. It is therefore right that the tribunal should continue to focus on dealing with SEN appeals, where its expertise lies.

Dan Rogerson: The logic throughout what the Minister has set out has been about bringing together providers to offer one point of contact with families and young people affected. If, as the pilots continue and this policy is brought into effect, it emerges that it might be preferable for there to be some kind of unified appeal process, would there be the mechanism to bring that about subsequently through secondary legislation? Alternatively, for that to happen would it need to be in the Bill?

Edward Timpson: My hon. Friend makes a point about the importance to the parents and the young person of having a single point of access into any complaints procedure. That is why we are looking at how there can be a single point of interface for them, providing them with the information and navigation they require to find themselves in the right part of that complaints process. Clearly, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon said, there are tribunal rules in place and there are always practical ways in which we can look at trying to enmesh more clearly together the various strands in the complaints mechanisms. We need to develop that through the pathfinders and, as we hopefully reduce the number of cases that end up in the tribunal system, see whether that has had an effect. We will keep that under close review.
	New clause 24, tabled by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West, was discussed in Committee, following which I wrote clarifying what information was already published. The effect of the new clause would be that details were published by individual case. It would not be appropriate to publish information that could identify details of private cases. Clearly, we want to reduce contention. Publishing information on individual cases is likely to extend the contention beyond the delivery of the tribunal’s judgment.
	Information would have to be published on the tribunal service and authorities’ costs, and that raises the question whether information would also have to be published on the relative complexity of cases to justify what may be a proportionate expense. The wish to publish information on the cost to authorities may be based on the misapprehension that authorities usually engage legal representation. The most recent figures show that authorities were legally represented at only 15% of hearings, and in
	most cases authorities would just be providing information on officer time costs. Publishing seemingly simple information on costs without proper context may well lead to greater confusion, therefore, but I have no doubt that the hon. Lady will want to return to that area in due course.
	New clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, and amendment 65, tabled by the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), both concern children with health conditions. It is right that every child with a long-term health need is entitled to a high-quality education. Their needs must be identified and addressed promptly, so that they can achieve their full potential. Imposing further statutory duties on schools to ensure that is not necessarily the answer, however.
	The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), in a powerful and passionate speech, demonstrated an acute knowledge of life as a Minister and the response that he was likely receive as to current provision. The Education Act 2002 already places a duty on the governing body of a maintained school to promote the well-being of pupils and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, schools are already under a duty through the Equality Act 2010 not to discriminate against pupils with long-term health problems that have an adverse effect on their ability to carry out their normal day-to-day activities. Nor should we require schools and further education institutions to request an EHC assessment for everyone with epilepsy or a related condition.
	In a recent written answer to a parliamentary question, I announced that the “managing medicines” guidance would be issued this year, which will further clarify schools’ responsibilities. I am confident that it will address the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns. However, I take what he said extremely seriously and will look closely at the details of what he and others have proposed. I would be more than happy to discuss these matters with him as we consider how we can improve practice in our schools, some of which is still below the level that we should be seeing. We know from figures cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay that the number of children affected by conditions that require support in school is not small, so every effort needs to be made to improve practice on the ground.

Adrian Sanders: The statistics seem to show that while there are provisions in previous legislation that are supposed to work, they are not working for large numbers of children with these medical conditions. That is the point of new clause 8.

Edward Timpson: I understand the intention behind the new clause, but when the raft of legislation directly or indirectly related to the point that my hon. Friend raises is still not bringing about the required support for children in our schools, one wonders whether additional legislation is necessarily the answer. We are seeking to provide the best possible guidance to schools on managing medicines, set against the current legislative framework; and under the new Ofsted inspection of schools, safety is a key feature.

Graham Stuart: I find the Minister’s answer inadequate. It is shameful that successive Governments have gone for so many years with a significant minority
	of children simply not having their needs met in school. When they have a condition or a flare-up that requires action, they get sent off to hospital, or their parents get called, whereas if the school had trained someone up, it could meet that need. This is not good enough. The Minister has done so much under the Bill; this is another area where there could be an historic, positive settlement coming out of the legislation. It would be a shame if the opportunity were missed.

Edward Timpson: I had been doing so well with my hon. Friend, throughout the day. He is quite right to continue to challenge us, and schools, on this point. The question that has to go back to schools is why some are able to manage medicines effectively and others are not. That suggests to me that there is not necessarily a direct relation to the legislative framework that they are working under, and that it is down to differences in practice and to the school’s commitment to dealing with the issue. As I say, I am not stopping the discussion at this juncture. I am sure that there will be other opportunities for us to explore what more we can do. Reissuing the guidance is an important step, because it will provide very clear advice to schools on how they should approach this important issue. We will follow that up closely, both through Government channels and through Ofsted’s work in its role as inspector.
	My hon. Friend tabled amendments to part 3 in respect of children who are home-educated. I know, because we have discussed the issue, that he takes a keen interest in these matters, both as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on home education and as the Chair of the Select Committee on Education. He recently wrote to the Secretary of State about the Bill’s implications for home educators. He will receive a reply shortly. In the meantime, I reassure him that the Bill will bring benefits to all children and young people with special educational needs, including those who are home-educated. In particular, clause 19 says that in exercising their functions under this part of the Bill, local authorities have to have regard to parents’ views, wishes and feelings, which might, of course, include a wish for home education.
	Parents will still have the right to educate their children at home. Where local authorities draw up education, health and care plans that say that home education is right for the child, the local authority will have a duty to arrange the special educational provision set out in the plan, in co-operation with the parents.

Tom Clarke: I was impressed by almost everything that the Minister said until he got to the words, “local authorities have to have regard to”. Does he not feel that that is rather a weak way to challenge local authorities? Is it possible that people will look at that in another place?

Edward Timpson: As to the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, I am sure that they will; that is the beauty of the process that we find ourselves in. We are content that we have the right balance. We also need to be alive to the fact that home-educated children require support—this goes to the earlier point about proportionality and reasonableness—that fits in with their education. Clearly, every child’s needs have to be assessed, and local authorities should have that in mind.
	Where a child has a plan that names a school as the appropriate environment in which to receive his or her education, parents will still be able to decide to home-educate; that is an important point. If they do, the local authority must assure itself that the parents are providing an education in accordance with section 7 of the Education Act 1996—that is, a full-time education that is suitable for the child’s age, ability, aptitude and special educational needs. If the local authority is so assured, it will be relieved of its duty to make the special educational provision set out in the plan, just as it is now with regard to statements. However, local authorities will continue to have the power to help parents to make suitable provision in the home by providing support services. To take on the right hon. Gentleman’s point, I would strongly encourage local authorities to consider exercising that power when making decisions about whether the provision being made by parents is suitable.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend says that local authorities must assure themselves that parents are delivering the education in accordance with 1996 Act. I do not think that that is the case. They have to act if they have reason to believe that parents are not providing suitable education. They have no such overarching duty to assure themselves that every single home educating parent is doing so. The parent, not the local authority, has primacy in the education of their child. The local education authority acts only if it finds out that there is a problem. It does not have to seek it.

Edward Timpson: I hope that our differentiation is based simply on the semantics of some of the vocabulary that is being used, but clearly we need to have absolute clarity on the role of each agency in the life of a child, whether they are educated within the school sector or at home. I will write to my hon. Friend to ensure that he has chapter and verse on precisely that point.
	I come now to amendments 60 and 6l. I understand from my hon. Friend that home educators are concerned that clause 23 will mean that local authorities will have to assess every home educated child to see if they have SEN, which takes us back to the previous Parliament, where we had many of these discussions. I can assure him that this is not the case. Clause 23 sets out which children and young people local authorities are responsible for under this part of the Bill. These will be children and young people who have already been identified by the authority or who have been brought to the authority’s attention as having, or possibly having, SEN. There is not that overarching forensic exercise of trying to locate each child.
	Amendment 63 seeks to tie the definition of the suitability of any alternative arrangements that parents make for children with an EHC plan more closely to the definition of parents’ right to home educate as set out in section 7 of the Education Act 1996. However, this is unnecessary as the provision in the amendment is already contained within the phrase “suitable alternative arrangements”, so does not need to be spelled out in this way. Similarly, while I understand the concern that amendment 64 seeks to address, it is not necessary. Where a child has a plan that says that education provided in the home is the right provision for the child,
	the local authority could only cease the plan when it felt it was no longer necessary to meet the child’s needs, as set out in the legislation.
	Where parents take a child out of school to home educate and are making suitable provision, as is the case now with statements, the local authority will be under a duty to review the plan annually to ensure that the provision that the parents are making continues to be suitable. The local authority could cease to maintain the plan only where it was decided it was no longer needed to meet the child’s needs. Moreover, the new duty on commissioning bodies to arrange the health provision in the plan and the greater expectation that the social care provision will be made will mean that parents can expect that these will continue to be provided. There is further scope within the code of practice to provide clarity on these issues for local authorities, and no doubt my hon. Friend will want, through his connections with the home education lobby, to contribute to that consultation, which will be happening later this year.
	On amendments 40, 41, 42 and 43, I find myself completely agreeing once again with my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon that some young people with special educational needs require more time to complete the education that other young people have already finished by the age of 18. The Bill rightly enables them to do so, but we want to avoid the expectation that every young person with SEN has an entitlement to education up to 25—a point that I think he accepted in Committee—regardless of whether they are ready to, or have already made, a successful transition into adult life. The Education Committee recommended that we clarify whether there is an entitlement to special education provision up to age 25. The requirement to have regard to age makes it clear that there is not. However, I can categorically assure my hon. Friend that no young person who needs an education, health and care plan to complete or consolidate their learning can be denied one just because they are over 18. Local authorities must rightly consider a range of matters in coming to these important decisions.
	Clause 45(3) requires local authorities to consider whether the educational outcomes specified in the plan have been achieved when it is deciding whether it should cease to maintain a plan. The indicative code of practice, at section 6.18, says:
	“local authorities must not simply cease to maintain plans once a young person reaches 18”.
	They should consider whether young people have met their agreed outcomes, whether continued education will help them achieve those outcomes, and whether the young person wants to stay in education. Of course, in what we hope will be rare instances, a young person may appeal against a decision to cease their plan, a step forward from the current system.
	My hon. Friend also tabled amendments 45 and 48. Securing a place at university is a positive outcome for any young person, and we are right to have high aspirations for children and young people with SEN and disabilities. However, it does not follow that higher education institutions must be part of this Bill. Local authorities are not responsible for the education of young people in higher education and it would be unreasonable to hold them accountable for securing special education provision while the young person is there. As my hon. Friend has already noted, the higher education sector has its own
	very successful system of support in the form of disabled students’ allowance. DSAs are not means-tested, are awarded in addition to the standard package of support and do not have to be repaid. We should not seek to duplicate or replace that system when it appears predominantly to be working well. In the academic year 2010-11, DSA provided 47,400 full-time students with support totalling £109.2 million. The Government also provided £13 million to HEIs in 2012-13 through the disability premium to help them recruit and support disabled students, and in 2013-14 that figure will rise to £15 million.
	However, I agree that we must improve the transition to university. Draft regulations require that when a young person is within two years of leaving formal education a review of their EHC plan must set out plans for helping them make a successful transition to adulthood. We will make it clear in the code of practice that good transition planning includes sharing the EHC plan with the university, with the young person’s consent; ensuring that the young person is aware of DSA and has made an early application so that support is in place when their university course begins, on which the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West shared her experience with the Committee; and ensuring continuity of health and care services where those continue to be required by the young person. In addition, we will work with those conducting DSA assessments to ensure that they understand the EHC plans, as well as how they can assist and inform the assessment and ensure that details of DSA are included in the local offer so that all young people thinking of applying to university are aware of the support available to them.
	Under proposals in the Care Bill, which is currently in Committee in the other place, 18-year-olds with eligible needs will receive a statutory care and support plan. The new legislation will ensure that there is no gap in provision as young people make the transition from children’s services to adult services and, when they move from one local authority area to another, that the new authority continues to meet their needs until it has undertaken its own assessment.
	With regard to amendment 47, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon that all young offenders, including those with SEN, need to receive the right support and access to education, both in custody and when they return to their communities. Since our debate in Committee, I have considered the issue further and remain of the view that clause 69 is necessary, not because we are not committed to supporting young offenders, but because it prevents our legislation from coming into conflict with existing comprehensive statutory provisions governing how education support is delivered in custody, as set out in the Apprenticeship, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon will know that the duties placed on local authorities by that legislation are currently fulfilled through the contracts held by the Education Funding Agency and that local authorities are often not involved. The Ministry of Justice, which funds that arrangement, is clear that the current system is not working, which is why it recently consulted on transformational reforms to how education and support in youth custody should be delivered in future. I have ensured that I have been kept in close contact with Justice Ministers so that the education
	element for children—not only those with SEN, but others in the care system and elsewhere—is being properly considered as part of the review.

Robert Buckland: Will my hon. Friend undertake to ensure that when the Bill goes to the other place a careful eye is kept on clause 69 and that the Ministry of Justice moves in a way that is properly co-ordinated so that we do not end up with the nightmare scenario of those young people simply falling through the gap?

Edward Timpson: I strongly share my hon. Friend’s view. I want to make progress on that, both in my Department and across Government. The commitment I gave him earlier will continue as the Bill moves on and other work is done by the Ministry of Justice on the consultation it has carried out, because it is important that we make as much progress on that as possible at an important stage of development in many of our institutions and within the secure estate.
	Clause 69 also plays an important technical function by disapplying duties with the SEN clauses that it would be impractical to deliver while a young offender is in custody. For those reasons, I do not agree that we can simply remove the clause ahead of the significant reforms to education in custody that the Ministry of Justice is considering and the resulting changes that might need to be made to existing legislation. However, I have sought to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon and hope that provides him with some confidence as we move forward.
	Turning to amendments 71 and 72, tabled by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West, we are continuing to strengthen our understanding of young people’s post-16 educational outcomes. The Department for Education will be publishing destination data on students with SEN at key stage 4 before the summer break, and later in the year for those at key stage 5. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills already publishes data on participation and attainment in further education by students with SEN aged 19 and over, and that will continue. I do not think that it is necessary to place additional reporting requirements on the further education sector when those data are already being made public. However, as I have said previously, I am sure that she will continue to press that point as the Bill moves on to the other place.
	On amendments 73 to 75, we will ensure that any code of practice laid before Parliament has been subject to proper consultation and that Parliament is given the opportunity to scrutinise new or updated versions. Clause 67(2) already ensures that the Secretary of State carries out sensible and proper consultation on the code of practice. We intend to publish a draft code of practice on the Department’s website for public consultation in the autumn of this year and to give ample time for comment, over and above the draft that we provided for the purposes of Committee. If we did not consult appropriately, there would be every reason for this House or the other place to resolve not to approve the code.
	The Education Committee considered the careful balance between proper consultation and parliamentary scrutiny and keeping the SEN code of practice up to
	date during pre-legislative scrutiny. The Bill delivers on their recommendation that the draft should be subject to consultation and approved by Parliament using the negative resolution procedure. This brings the code into line with other statutory codes, such as the school admissions code, and enables an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny.
	This debate has continued the good faith that has been a hallmark of the progress of this part of the Bill. Given what I have said, I hope that hon. Members will feel sufficiently assured not to press their amendments.
	Question put and agreed to.
	New clause 9 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10
	 — 
	Childcare costs scheme: preparatory expenditure

‘The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs may incur expenditure in preparing for the introduction of a scheme for providing assistance in respect of the costs of childcare.’.—(Elizabeth Truss.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Elizabeth Truss: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 6—Staff to child ratios: Ofsted-registered childminder settings—
	‘(1) This section applies to Ofsted-registered childminder settings.
	(2) The ratio of staff to children under the age of eight must be no less than one to six, where—
	(a) a maximum of three children may be young children;
	(b) a maximum of one child is under the age of one.
	(3) Any care provided by childminders for older children must not adversely affect the care of children receiving early years provision.
	(4) If a childminder can demonstrate to parents, carers and inspectors, that the individual needs of all the children are being met, then in addition to the ratio set out in subsection (2), they may also care for—
	(a) babies who are siblings of the children referred to in subsection (2), or
	(b) their own baby.
	(5) If children aged between four and five years only attend the childminding setting outside of normal school hours or the normal school term time, they may be cared for at the same time as three other young children, provided that at no time the ratio of staff to children under the age of eight exceeds one to six.
	(6) If a childminder employs an assistant or works with another childminder, each childminder or assistant may care for the number of children permitted by the ratios specified in subsections (2), (4), and (5).
	(7) Children may only be left in the sole care of a childminder’s assistant for two hours in a single day.
	(8) Childminders must obtain the permission of a child’s parents or carers before that child can be left in the sole care of a childminder’s assistant.
	(9) The ratios in subsections (2), (4) and (5) apply to childminders providing overnight care, provided that the children are continuously monitored, which may be through the use of electronic equipment.
	(10) For the purposes of this section a child is—
	(a) a “young child” up until 1 September following his or her fifth birthday.
	(b) an “older child” after the 1 September following his or her fifth birthday.’.
	New clause 7—Staff to child ratios: Ofsted-registered non-domestic childcare settings—
	‘(1) This section applies to Ofsted-registered, non-domestic childcare settings.
	(2) For children aged under two—
	(a) the ratio of staff to children must be no less than one to three;
	(b) at least one member of staff must hold a full and relevant level 3 qualification, and must be suitably experienced in working with children under two;
	(c) at least half of all other members of staff must hold a full and relevant level 2 qualification;
	(d) at least half of all members of staff must have received training in care for babies; and
	(e) where there is a dedicated area solely for children under two years old, the member of staff in charge of that area must, in the judgement of their employer, have suitable experience of working with children under two years old.
	(3) For children between the ages of two and three—
	(a) the ratio of staff to children must be no less than one to four;
	(b) at least one member of staff must hold a full and relevant level 3 qualification, and
	(c) at least half of all other members of staff must hold a full and relevant level 2 qualification;
	(4) Where there is registered early years provision, which operates between 8 am and 4 pm, and a member of staff with Qualified Teacher status, Early Years Professional status or other full and relevant level 6 qualification is working directly with the children, for children aged three and over—
	(a) the ratio of staff to children must be no less than one to 13; and
	(b) at least one member of staff must hold a full and relevant level 3 qualification.
	(5) Where there is registered early years provision, which operates outside the hours of 8 am and 4 pm, and between the hours of 8 am and 4 pm, where a member of staff with Qualified Teacher status, Early Years Professional status or other full and relevant level 6 qualification is not working directly with the children, for children aged three and over—
	(a) the ratio of staff to children must be no less than one to eight;
	(b) at least one member of staff must hold a full and relevant level 3 qualification, and
	(c) at least half of all other staff must hold a full and relevant level 2 qualification;
	(6) In independent schools where—
	(a) a member of staff with Qualified Teacher status, Early Years Professional status or other full and relevant level 6 qualification;
	(b) an instructor; or
	(c) a suitably qualified overseas-trained teacher is working directly with the children, for children aged three and over—
	(i) for classes where the majority of children will reach the age of five or older within the school year, the ratio of staff to children must be no less than one to 30;
	(ii) for all other classes the ratio of staff to children must be no less than one to 13; and
	(iii) at least one other member of staff must hold a full and relevant level 3 qualification.
	(7) In independent schools where there is—
	(a) no member of staff with Qualified Teacher status, Early Years Professional status or other full and relevant level 6 qualification;
	(b) no instructor; or
	(c) no suitably qualified overseas-trained teacher working directly with the children, for children aged three and over—
	(i) the ratio of staff to children must be no less than one to eight;
	(ii) at least one other member of staff must hold a full and relevant level 3 qualification, and
	(iii) at least one other member of staff must hold a full and relevant level 2 qualification.
	(8) In maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained schools (except reception classes)—
	(a) the ratio of staff to children must be no less than one to 13;
	(b) at least one member of staff must be a school teacher as defined by subsection 122(3) [Power to prescribe pay and conditions] of the Education Act 2002 and Schedule 2 to the Education (School Teachers’ Qualifications) (England) Regulations 2003; and
	(c) at least one other member of staff must hold a full and relevant level 3 qualification.
	(9) The Secretary of State may make provision in statutory guidance to—
	(a) define qualifications as “full and relevant”; and
	(b) define “suitable experience” for those working with children under two.
	(10) If HM Chief Inspector of Education is concerned about the quality of provision or the safety and well-being of children in a setting he may impose different ratios.’.
	Amendment 76, in clause73,page50,line16,at beginning insert ‘If, after a consultation period of not less than three months, and the publication of a response to the consultation, the Secretary of State is satisfied with the provisions, he may make an order so that’.
	Amendment 77, in page50,line29,leave out clause 75.
	Government amendment 28.

Elizabeth Truss: I wish to speak to new clause 10, which introduces paving legislation to allow Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to begin to set up tax-free child care, and amendment 28, which is a minor and technical amendment relating to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
	First, I will comment on new clauses 6 and 7. As the House knows, we have proposals, on which we have consulted, for providers with highly qualified staff to be able to operate more flexible staff-to-child ratios, in line with best practice in leading European countries such as France, Holland and Germany. I highlight the fact that these proposals would be entirely optional for nurseries and are about empowering the front line.
	The proposals received support from, among others, Sir Martin Narey, formerly of Barnado’s, and Sir Michael Wilshaw of Ofsted. I firmly believe that these flexibilities would allow nurseries to offer more choice of high-quality child care places to parents, invest additional revenue in attracting the best staff, and reduce costs for parents. However, as I made clear on the media this morning, it has not been possible to reach cross-Government agreement, so we are not proceeding with this reform.
	That will not stop me working to make affordable, quality child care available to all. I am absolutely committed to this goal.

Barry Sheerman: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Elizabeth Truss: This is a matter of pressing need, and we are taking forward the following proposals: introducing early-years educator and early-years teacher qualifications; introducing tax-free child care; ensuring that more money for child care goes to the front line; increasing the supply of childminders through the establishment of childminder agencies; and making it easier for schools to take two-year-olds in their nurseries.

Barry Sheerman: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Elizabeth Truss: The current childcare system is not working for parents. The real cost of child care has risen by 77% in real terms since 2003. Families in England pay some of the highest costs in the world; some spend 27% of net family income on child care. In comparison, parents in France spend just 11% of their income on child care.

Barry Sheerman: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

Elizabeth Truss: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Barry Sheerman: I hope that the hon. Lady does not think I am trying to be disruptive. I was enjoying what she said, but I want to get to the heart of it. She said that the Government are not proceeding with the other proposals, which should of course have due consideration. At the moment, child care in this country is too expensive, and very many women find it a great burden to be able to afford it as compared with those in other countries, especially in Europe. Will the proposals that she is left with do something about that?

Elizabeth Truss: I completely agree that we have very high child care costs and I will do everything I can, where we can secure cross-Government agreement, to address that. I want to outline some of our proposals.

Graham Stuart: I think there is merit in the work my hon. Friend has done and I pay tribute to her for the effort and energy she has put into it. I am disappointed that it has been brought to a halt. Will she confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister agreed to the proposals initially, only to renege on that agreement later?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend for his point. It is true that the reason we are not proceeding with the proposals is that we have failed to secure cross-Government agreement.
	As I have said, the current child care system is not working for parents and the costs are very high.

Graham Stuart: May I confirm my understanding that the Deputy Prime Minister signed up to this but later, for political or other reasons—who knows?—withdrew his support? That is shameful and it could lead to less flexibility in a child care system that lacks quality and is too expensive.

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend for his point. Other countries in Europe have flexibility and lower costs for child care. We are seeking to replicate some of their other reforms, and that is what I want to address.
	One of the issues is that the UK has some of the lowest staff salaries in Europe. Child care workers here earn £6.60 an hour on average, which is barely above the minimum wage. Annual earnings are £13,000, which is well below the averages of £16,000 in France, £20,000 in Denmark and £22,000 in Sweden. We must reform the supply and funding of child care. If we do not, it will remain expensive and parents will struggle to combine work and family or find themselves cobbling together care, which is difficult and inconvenient. I know of some families where parents work alternating shifts to cover their care responsibilities. I want those families to have good alternatives.
	Dual-income families are now the norm across the developed world because of our changing society and economy. In Britain, two thirds of mothers go out to work and many fathers also seek to combine family and work life. If we want parents to have good choices, we have to get better value for money for the £5 billion that the Government spend. International comparisons show that we spend the same proportion of GDP on public support for child care and early years as France and more than Germany, yet, as I have said, parents here pay double the cost that parents pay in countries such as France and Germany, and I do not think that that is right.

Barry Sheerman: I would be the last person to volunteer to defend the leader of the Liberal Democrats, but perhaps he was not sure about the overall, holistic analysis of what is going wrong. We pay more, it costs more and early-years carers are paid rubbish salaries, while many settings do not have a graduate in employment, which always lifts the quality. What is the reason for that? There must be one. What do the advisers and researchers suggest?

Elizabeth Truss: There are, of course, various reasons, many of which relate to the history of how child care systems have developed in different countries. France, for example, has a long tradition of the école maternelle, which involves structured, teacher-led learning from an early age. That has been shown to improve outcomes for children, particularly those from the lowest income backgrounds. Our reforms seek to make sure that high quality, highly qualified professionals go into early years, and to try to adjust the differential between early years and primary school salaries. I will come on to that later.
	Parents need to know that they can access high-quality care. The research is clear: high-quality early learning experiences boost children’s attainment throughout their education. There are many excellent nurseries that provide stimulating, structured learning opportunities for young children, which help them to prepare for school. However, there is much more to do.
	Anyone who works with children needs a wide range of qualities, not all of which can be quantified by degrees or diplomas. However, that does not undermine the case for greater skills and better qualifications. In future, there will be two qualified roles: early years educator and early years teacher. Graduate leaders are already having a positive impact. Almost 12,000 early
	years professionals are trained to deliver high-quality early education and care for pre-school children. Building on that legacy, early years teachers will be specialists in early childhood development who are trained to work with babies and young children. We want to see more crossover between teachers in primary and early years so that there is a continuum of education, rather than two separate silos.
	The training programme for early years teachers begins this September. Trainees will have to meet the same requirements as primary school trainee teachers. They must have a degree and will need to pass the English and maths tests. The National College for Teaching and Leadership has consulted on the new teacher standards for early years, which will be published in July.
	We are extending the reach of Teach First, which has been successful in bringing talented new people into schools. From this September, it will include teaching three and four-year-olds for the first time. Teach First attracts some of the most talented and ambitious graduates in the country, many of whom might not otherwise have considered working with young children. They can make a big contribution, especially in areas of disadvantage.
	We also want to raise the standards of practitioners who do not have degrees. Early years educators will be qualified at level 3. Early education qualifications have been far too diffuse and lacking in rigour, and there are hundreds of existing and historical early years qualifications. We are addressing that failure. The National College for Teaching and Leadership has consulted on new criteria for level 3 qualifications and will publish them shortly. Using those criteria, awarding organisations will develop high-quality qualifications to be introduced in September 2014. The minimum entry standard for the qualifications will be grade C at GCSE in English and maths.
	Apprenticeships will offer a high-quality route to becoming an early years educator. They will last 20 months on average and combine employment with study towards recognised qualifications through various routes, including further education colleges.

Andrea Leadsom: Will the new qualifications, particularly those for early years educators, include training in early infant brain development and the crucial importance for childhood development of a secure early bond?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. The new qualifications will include the study of early brain development and attachment theory to ensure that early years educators and teachers are up to date with the latest research and practice when they go into the profession fully.
	We have just announced a £2 million apprenticeship bursary scheme for apprentice early years educators. Up to 1,000 bursary places will be available to people who aspire to a career in early education. Each bursary will be worth £1,500 and an additional £300 will be available for further training. I am encouraged by the view of David Pomfret, the principal of the college of West Anglia, that the bursaries will make it easier for people to begin a career in early education. The college has seen more people taking up such courses in recent years and we want to encourage more young people into this important profession.
	In addition to improving the supply of early years educators and teachers into child care, we are reforming child care funding. The tax-free child care scheme will provide 2.5 million families with financial support towards their formal child care costs. That is an expansion on the current system and, in the majority of cases, will provide a more generous amount.
	Unfortunately, under the current employer-supported child care voucher scheme, which was introduced by the previous Government, the question of who receives support is arbitrary. It is also highly inefficient, with 33% of the total amount being spent on overheads. At present, only 5% of employers offer employer-supported child care, and only a fifth of employees are eligible for it. Those who are self-employed do not have access to it, and whether a parent can or cannot get it is a lottery. Strangely, as more than one parent can claim employer-supported child care, in some cases there are two claimants for one child. That means that the costs for one child could be covered more than for a single parent with several children, and that is neither a sensible nor fair way to continue.
	Our new tax-free child care scheme will resolve those anomalies. It will be available to any working family, except where one or both earners pay the additional rate of income tax. It will be on a per-child basis and include the self-employed and those on the national minimum wage. Tax-free child care means that around 2.5 million families will now have access to support. That support will be worth the same as the basic rate of income tax at 20% of costs, making child care costs effectively tax free. It will mean that the average family with two children will receive up to £2,400 each year. Those on lower incomes will continue to have 70% of their child care costs paid through tax credits and, in future, universal credit, and there will be an additional £200 million to help those in receipt of universal credit ensure that work always pays.
	We are not introducing the tax-free child care scheme now. The Government have been in discussions with interested parties since the announcement of the scheme, and will launch a formal consultation document shortly. The consultation will last 12 weeks, and the Government will proactively engage with those affected by the changes to discuss the issues. New clause 10 has been tabled to enable HMRC to start developing the scheme. Although we will consult in full on its details, the basic tenets have been set out. To ensure that the scheme is in operation by the autumn 2015 target, work on its foundations must commence now.

Craig Whittaker: I thank my hon. Friend for providing information on the tax-free child care system. Will that replace all forms of child care currently in the market? I am thinking particularly of employee benefits for those who receive child care as a benefit through the taxation of companies.

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and HMRC will consider that issue in its new consultation on this subject.
	Much of the work required is based on IT development because we want all parents to be able to access the service online. As with paving legislation before it, the new clause will enable officials to start high-level discussions on IT and other development, and such discussions
	could not take place without the new clause. The provision will not affect HMRC’s current operations or impede the development or scrutiny of the tax-free child care scheme, and there is no immediate cost of the scheme that must be funded.
	This is a short and self-explanatory new clause that merely allows the Government to begin preliminary work ahead of the final design of the tax-free child care scheme. The Bill is similar to those used by previous Governments, and takes no greater powers than in those cases. Furthermore, the Government are clear that any changes required in primary legislation will receive appropriate scrutiny. The new clause is minor and technical in nature, and I look for support across the House to enable HMRC to start working on one of the Government’s priorities.
	In addition to reforming child care funding we must also increase the supply of quality child care. The number of childminders has almost halved over the past 15 years, limiting parental choice in a flexible affordable form of child care. Many parents want home-based care, especially in a child’s youngest years—I know my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) is a great advocate of that. The Bill enables the introduction of childminder agencies, which I believe will help to increase the number of childminders in the market by removing barriers to entry and offering an alternative to working completely independently. Agencies will drive up quality—they will be required to support the training and development of childminders—and make it easier for parents to access childminders and be assured of high-quality and flexible provision.

Andrea Leadsom: Will children’s centres be encouraged to become childminder agencies? That would link two of the most critical structures available to support parents. Childminders often believe they do not have access to training or to the camaraderie of others in their field, so that could be a perfect combination.

Elizabeth Truss: I agree with my hon. Friend and will mention the types of organisations that could be involved in childminder agencies in due course.
	Childminder agencies will be a one-stop shop, meaning that there will be a simpler process for childminders entering the profession, without the large up-front costs that put many capable people off. We are working closely with childminders and other providers, including those interested in setting up agencies, and with Ofsted, as we develop details of how agencies might operate.
	I am delighted to inform the House that the Department has written to more than 60 organisations that have expressed an interest in working with us to trial elements of childminder agencies. There is a mix of organisations, including businesses ranging from nursery chains to individual childminders, and academies, maintained schools, national child care organisations, children’s centres, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and local authorities. The trials will begin later this summer. I will say more in the coming weeks about the organisations taking part and the shape of the trials. Some hon. Members seek assurances on our plans for consultation. I can confirm that,
	following the trials, the Department will consult fully on the key requirements to be placed on childminder agencies in regulations.
	Amendment 28 is a technical amendment and introduces a transitional provision to cater for section 85 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 coming into force on or before the day on which the Bill receives Royal Assent. Section 85 is designed to bring about a change across the board in relation to the fines that magistrates courts can impose. The amendment is needed to ensure that section 85 applies to the new offences relating to childminder agencies in schedule 4 as it applies to most other pre-existing offences.
	Local authorities have an important role in early education and child care. Local authorities and their local agencies—family information services or Sure Start children’s centres—have a vital part to play in helping families who need support and in championing the interests of children. For example, local authorities have made strong progress on securing early learning for two-year-olds—some 55,000 children are already benefiting from places throughout the country. I am working with the Department of Health to ensure that services are more closely integrated, and that the two-and-a-half-year-old check is in place in 2015, which will help in that regard. We need to ensure that families get the help they need, and that a seamless service is provided by children’s centres, with both the Department for Education and the Department of Health contributing.
	I want local authorities to continue to work to attract high-quality providers to their area, and to encourage schools to offer more nursery places and school-based child care. At present, there is a big gap between the proportions of outstanding providers in different local authority areas. As I have said, we are supporting Ofsted with increased funds to increase the number of Her Majesty’s inspectors. Sir Michael Wilshaw has announced his intention to focus more on weaker providers. Ofsted is to trial an improvement programme with nurseries and pre-schools that are not yet “good” in three London boroughs in the next few weeks to show how this approach might work. Local authorities are also empowered to offer support and training. The intention of the clause is to get rid of unnecessary bureaucracy, so that local authorities can focus on these important functions. I want to see a shift from process and bureaucracy to focusing on what matters: outcomes for children.
	Clause 75 repeals the bureaucratic requirement to produce a child care sufficiency assessment every three years. Instead, local authorities will report annually to elected Members and parents in a way that meets local circumstances—a move widely supported at consultation. I have recently published new guidance for Sure Start children’s centres, and a consultation on a proposed new funded early education guidance that reflects this approach.
	I have set out a range of steps the Government are taking to meet the challenge of high-quality and affordable child care for all families.

Sharon Hodgson: I rise to speak to new clauses 6 and 7 and amendments 76 and 77 in my name and in the name of my hon. Friends. Notwithstanding the welcome announcement the Minister has just made on behalf of
	the Government—at last, I might add—we still wish to proceed with the new clauses as their premise and purpose are still valid.
	The Government have got themselves into a complete shambles. With every passing week, it becomes more and more apparent that Ministers do not have a credible plan to tackle the child care crisis they have created. Under this Government, parents are facing a triple whammy: costs are rising faster than wages and even general inflation, with the average cost having risen by almost 20% since 2010; support from the Government for those on tax credits has been cut, meaning that some families are up to £1,500 a year worse off; and there is a real struggle to find places in some areas owing to the cuts in supply-side subsidies and direct provision, such as through children’s centres. Since the election, we have lost almost 900 nurseries and more than 1,500 child minders, and there are 500 fewer Sure Start children’s centres.
	It is no wonder, therefore, that the Prime Minister panicked and plucked the Children’s Minister from the Back Benches to implement her ideas without even bothering to check whether they were any good. The main idea to come out of “More great childcare”—increasing the number of children each adult can look after—is the worst one, and we are pleased to hear that it has been dropped. The Minister has been told categorically, most notably by advisers commissioned by her own Department, that it was not a good idea from the start, yet still she persisted with it.
	If you will allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to place on record what those advisers said. Eva Lloyd from the university of East London was commissioned, along with Professor Helen Penn, by the Department to advise on child care practice from around the world, but her report is still being sat on seven months later. She said:
	“The ratio relaxation is unlikely to reduce child care costs, but may well drive down child care quality.”
	Professor Cathy Nutbrown, whose excellent report on qualifications in the sector was manipulated by the Government to argue for relaxing ratios, said:
	“Current proposals will shake the foundation of quality provision for young children. Watering down ratios regardless of the level of qualifications held by staff, is likely to lead to worse, not ‘great’ childcare, and will undermine intentions to provide quality early learning experiences.”
	You might be forgiven for thinking, Mr Deputy Speaker, that child care providers, who in purely economic terms could stand to benefit from these plans, would back them. Well, here is what some of the leading representatives of child care providers have to say.
	Neil Leitch from the Pre-School Learning Alliance, whose survey of members found that 94% did not believe they could maintain the quality of their current level of provision if staffing levels were reduced, said:
	“We are absolutely appalled by this fixation to alter ratios… This is a recipe for disaster.”
	In a separate release last week, he said:
	“There is no doubt that relaxing ratios would have lowered the overall quality of childcare in this country. Not only would children have received less one-to-one support from childcare workers, but their well-being would also have been put at serious risk.”

Alison Seabeck: My hon. Friend is highlighting all the reasons the proposal should not have gone forward, but it seems that it ended up as an internal argument on the Government Benches, rather than being based on the opinion of experts.

Sharon Hodgson: We would rather the Minister had come to the House sooner with a proper statement. In the time available this afternoon, that will not be possible, and obviously the House is not as well attended as it would have been for a statement. It is disappointing, then, that the announcement was not made in a statement to a full House in the usual way.

Craig Whittaker: I fully understand what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve, but are these professionals and new clauses trying to say that the professionals in the sector are not professional or good enough to decide themselves what ratios they deem to be safe, rather than what she deems to be safe?

Sharon Hodgson: No. I will tell the hon. Gentleman what more of the professionals have said, however, and then perhaps he will think on the strangeness of his intervention.
	Purnima Tanuku of the National Day Nurseries Association said:
	“At the moment there is an option that nurseries can operate a 1:13 ratio for over threes, if a person with a Level Six (degree level) qualification is working directly with the children. However, few nurseries take up this option, largely because it is not practical for one person to meet the needs of 13 children doing the type of activities most nurseries offer.”
	That was echoed by private nurseries and managers I have met across the country. They suggested that it can often be a struggle providing quality care when operating at the current ratios. Finally, I will quote June O’Sullivan, chief executive of the London Early Years Foundation, which runs the nursery in the House of Commons:
	“It beggars belief that a junior Minister can wreak havoc on a sector that has explained the negative consequences of her actions.”
	Obviously the junior Minister has at last come to the House and ditched her plans, which I am sure all the people I have quoted will be pleased to hear. Most important, though, parents will be most pleased to hear today’s announcement.

Alex Cunningham: I too welcome this U-turn by the Government today, but I welcome all the more my hon. Friend’s new clauses. Parents in my constituency are actually worried about the safety of their children under the Government’s proposals and are taking that anxiety to work. Some were even considering giving up work, if it had been introduced, which would not have done our economy any good. Would support for the new clauses in fact do our economy good and remove that anxiety from parents?

Sharon Hodgson: I agree, which is why we are proceeding with the new clauses: we need to ensure that parents will never again face such a threat from a Minister who just brings forward a mad idea out of the blue, against all the evidence and without any support from anyone—whether professional, parent or expert—in the country.
	Both Mumsnet and Netmums have officially backed the Rewind on Ratios campaign, following widespread anger among parents—anger that the Minister felt the
	full force of when she did a web chat on Mumsnet in February. A recent survey of parents by Bounty found that 80% would not back the changes, even if they led to significantly cheaper child care bills. Of course, that is a big if.
	The Department has argued—the Minister did so again in her opening remarks—that the measure could cut costs. The modelling information that the Department was forced to reveal said that it could cut costs by up to 28%, but the modelling done to arrive at that figure was branded by providers as a “work of fiction”. The modelling made wildly unrealistic assumptions of 1005 occupancy for 52 weeks of the year, which no nursery ever has—speak to the nurseries and they will say that. It did not account for any breaks, training sickness or holidays for any of the staff. In one model—the one that said that it would save parents up to 28%—staff would not even have been paid any more money, which was supposed to be the whole point of these reforms, as the Minister again said in her opening remarks.
	Busy Bees, which had initially supported the plans before saying it would not be changing its ratios, calculated that it could actually cost parents more if these changes were brought in.

Alison Seabeck: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again but this issue is really important. No consideration seems to have been given to the need to change premises, for example. My granddaughter was in a three-storey property, with babies, largely, at the top. The number of children in care on that floor could not be increased without something significant being done to the building. I do not think that any of those additional costs were considered.

Sharon Hodgson: My hon. Friend makes a very valid point that has been raised with me many times. I know that the Secretary of State is getting a reputation for sloppy research, and I feel that this is another case of policy-based evidence from his Department.
	Then, last week, we thought that common sense had prevailed and the plans had been ditched. In fact, the Deputy Prime Minister said as much. In his briefing note to journalists, he set out in black and white the complete lack of support and credible evidence that the Department for Education had for these reforms. This was a cause of great relief for the tens of thousands of parents and childcare professionals who were rightly appalled by the lack of consideration of the needs of young children in these plans. Indeed, given how out of touch with childcare practice in England the Minister appears to be, it is little wonder that, according to her own Department, she has visited just five English nurseries in an official capacity since getting the job, compared with seven settings in France.
	I am not sure what those French nurseries were like, but the Minister regularly cites them as exemplars. I am sure she will have seen that the chief executive of the Pre-school Learning Alliance, Neil Leitch, commented last week on his visit to France. He highlighted staff not having the time to identify and support children with special educational needs, nursery age children having
	scheduled toilet breaks and long afternoon naps, and children being made to sit still at desks for so long that tennis balls had to be fixed to their chair legs so that they did not make a noise when they fidgeted. This is not what anyone with an understanding of child development—
	[
	Interruption
	]
	He has photographs. They are available on the internet. The Minister is disputing what I am saying. She can look up the pictures, and I am sure that Neil Leitch would be more than happy to meet her to discuss what he saw in France.
	This is not what anyone with an understanding of child development would describe as high-quality early education. When we consider how stubbornly the Minister has refused to listen to those experts and child care bodies who repeatedly told her that that is what her plans would mean, it is unsurprising that she has met with the tiny number of organisations who support her many more times than the major sector representatives who disagree.

Craig Whittaker: In view of the fact that the hon. Lady thought my last intervention a little strange, let me put it in a different way. Is she saying that the French system is much more expensive, or does it have higher ratios and so is much more unsafe than our system?

Sharon Hodgson: Yes, the French system is of a lower quality. That comes out in the OECD ratings of its nurseries, which are lower than those of the British system. When people meet French nursery providers, they are often asked about our system. French nursery providers look to emulate our model and cannot understand why we look to emulate their systems. [Interruption.] That is what we are told, but again, I am more than happy to hear evidence to the contrary.
	Within 24 hours of the Deputy Prime Minister saying that the policy was dead in the water, both the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister’s spokesperson denied that a decision had been taken. The Department for Education said absolutely nothing for six days. We had to wait six days for a Minister to come to the House and make a formal announcement confirming that the plans are indeed dead in the water. We were grateful to hear that at long last, even though we will not have time to discuss it in detail this afternoon.
	Even though the Minister has said today that the plans have been shelved, I do not have confidence that we have seen the last of them. After all, the Government are struggling to meet their target to provide free child care for the 20% most disadvantaged two-year-olds. With just three months before the policy is due to be introduced, a freedom of information survey that I have conducted shows that only 60% of councils have the capacity to provide the places, probably for some of the reasons cited a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), who is no longer in her place. The temptation for the Government just to click their fingers and increase the number of two-year-olds that each worker can care for must be great. We should be clear: all they would have to do is change statutory guidance, meaning that Parliament would have no say.
	In proposing the new clauses in this group, the Opposition are giving this House a say. We have an opportunity to nip any such future reforms in the bud. We have an opportunity to send the strongest possible message to
	Ministers that this House has listened to the tens of thousands of parents and professionals who have been campaigning against these changes, not to mention the Department’s own experts, and to say that we will not risk the safety of children in child care settings or the quality of the early learning and development they receive by allowing any such plans to go through unchallenged.

Elizabeth Truss: Does that mean that the hon. Lady thinks it was wrong for the previous Government to increase ratios for three and four-year-olds in 2008?

Sharon Hodgson: I was not in the Department or in position in 2008, but if we raised ratios, I am sure it was done after full consultation and with the support and backing of child care professionals, which is the exact opposite to now. That is the key difference, and I am sure that people out there listening to this debate will know whether that is true and whether that case is a fair comparison.
	I sincerely hope that today the Deputy Prime Minister will put his MPs where his mouth is and lead his Liberal Democrat Members into the Aye Lobby with Labour when we seek the opinion of the House on these new clauses shortly, to ensure that in future no Secretary of State can force through, against the will of the House, changes such as those that the Minister has now dropped.
	Amendment 76 would require the Government to take the novel step of consulting on the formation of childminder agencies before they legislate to create them. I hope that Ministers will learn the lessons from the furore over ratios. I should say from the outset that I do not have a dogmatic objection to childminder agencies, particularly if they are voluntary. What the Government say they want to achieve through such agencies is all very sensible: greater co-operation and peer support for childminders, as well as access to training and help with gaining bursaries. Childminder agencies will also be a single point of contact for parents who might need a mix of child care solutions. These are all good things that make for a vibrant childminder sector, and are all things that local authority childminder networks and family information services should be providing at the moment. That some of them are not is perhaps down to the devastating cuts to the grant that local authorities previously received from the Department for Education to pay for them.
	Since the publication of this Bill, the Department has been consulting on removing many of those duties from local authorities—such as providing training and quality improvement support—and this on top of the attempt in clause 75 to remove the duty to publish child care sufficiency reports, which our amendment 77 would block. All this seems to be a clear sign that the Government want local authorities almost completely removed from the child care equation and that agencies are therefore the preferred configuration for childminders.
	Given that the Minister has said that there will be no direct funding from the Government for agencies to provide those services, the implication is that there will be a cost to the childminder. That cost will in turn have to be passed on to the parents, because most childminders do not earn the sort of money that would allow them to soak up the kind of membership fee or commission that we might expect an agency to demand. The most recent
	childcare costs survey from the Daycare Trust found that childminder fees were already increasing by an average of more than 5%, year on year.
	Of course, as all the parent surveys tell us, cost is a secondary issue to quality, and it is the end of individual inspections by Ofsted that is the most worrying reform. Parents really value the fact that their childminder has proved their effectiveness to Ofsted. A National Childminding Association survey last year found that 80% of parents thought that individual inspections were important, and that 75% might not choose a childminder without the reassurance of an individual inspection. Childminders value the inspections too: 80% felt that moving to an agency model of inspection would have a detrimental effect on their professionalism, and they are obviously concerned that this would put parents off using them as well.
	Of course we want more childminders to set up—as I said earlier, we have seen the number drop by more than 1,500 since the election—but we should not be trying to achieve that by passing legislation that has the potential fundamentally to change the market, without first consulting on it and establishing consensus. I would therefore welcome assurances from the Minister that the Government will set up such a consultation before the Bill completes its passage through the other place.

Dan Rogerson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), as it enables me to clarify these matters from the perspective of the Liberal Democrat Benches. It was also good to see the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), back in the Chamber, although he is no longer in his place. He led the charge on many of these issues, although I suspect that he might have been getting a bit of gyp from the old leg, as he seemed uncharacteristically bad tempered.
	I shall address my remarks to the new clauses and amendments in this group, as you would expect me to do, Mr Deputy Speaker. I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) for the way in which she has gone into battle over the use of the taxation system to support the provision of child care. She has come up with a whole package of measures, which we will explore in the course of the debate, and it is a great achievement to have secured some cash from the Treasury. I know that colleagues in my party support her in this. She has gone out there and done this, and I pay tribute to her for her achievement. New clause 10, in putting down this marker in the Bill, represents an important step forward in showing the Government’s commitment to supporting parents who want access to good quality child care in order to allow them to go out to work, and to bring up their families in the way they aspire to.
	The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West talked about the rising cost of child care, but she could have turned the clock back a bit further to when the previous Government were in power, because those costs rose hugely on their watch as well. This is nothing new; it is a trend that has been going on for some time. I therefore welcome the proposal to set out a framework for investing more public money in supporting the cost of child care for families who need it.
	New clauses 6 and 7, tabled by the hon. Lady, cover an issue that has, as the Minister said, been settled for the time being. This Government now have no plans to alter the ratios. They consulted on the proposal, and those who responded to the consultation were fairly overwhelmingly against it. The Government have responded to that. The Minister clearly believes that there is a case to be made for such an alteration, however, and she will continue to make that case in the run-up to the general election if that remains Conservative party policy, but it is not the policy of the coalition Government to introduce such changes now.
	That debate will no doubt continue, but I welcome the fact that, on the basis of the consultation, the Government have chosen not to go ahead with the changes. In today’s statement to the House on GCSE reform, the Chair of the Select Committee praised the Secretary of State for listening to the results of that consultation and being persuaded to take a different tack on some aspects of exam reform. The Secretary of State did it in that case, and the Government have also done it in this case. We should not criticise them for that; listening and taking action based on a consultation is the purpose of a consultation. The debate will continue and we will see whether a further case can be made. For the time being, that does not seem to have been the case. It is not only the sector that was concerned about this; parents were, too. If those two important groups are expressing concern, it is very difficult to move ahead with the policy.
	The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West is seeking to add measures that are entirely unnecessary. There are a number of things that any future Government might propose to do about child care with which we may be unhappy, but as those things are not being proposed, it is utterly pointless to say we have to have a vote on them now. We could have all sorts of amendments to stop things that are not being proposed by the Government—an amendment to prevent child care from taking place outdoors in the rain, for example—but that is pointless.
	We all know what this is about. It is about the Opposition, as they are entitled to do—[Interruption.] Absolutely; it is about children, which is why the Government are not doing these things. These amendments, on the other hand, are nothing to do with children. They are about trying to add something to the Bill so the Opposition can claim some kind of victory or try to drive a wedge between the two Government parties. That is what Opposition parties do, so that is absolutely fine, but there is no need to vote for amendments to stop something that the Government are not proposing. I will be disappointing the Opposition Front-Bench team, therefore.
	Liberal Democrats policy is clear. We are not convinced that the ratio change is necessary. [Interruption.] Absolutely not; we can support the Government because the Government are not making any change, so the Opposition proposal is unnecessary, as I have just set out.
	Amendment 76 seeks to change the clause that enacts schedule 4 to the Childcare Act 2006, a provision that was put in place under the last Labour Government.
	I was therefore intrigued to note that the Labour Opposition have tabled an amendment not to enact something that was originally passed on their watch.
	I understand the thinking behind Opposition amendment 77 on the duty on local authorities to provide an assessment of child care places in their locality. Having heard from the Minister about what is being proposed, however, and given the fact that the consultation has found that they would prefer to do it on an annual basis in a less bureaucratic way, I am persuaded that that is unnecessary, too.
	We have therefore heard from the Government that there is no proposal to change ratios, which I welcome. They are also putting in the key change, which the Minister has gone out and fought for, of more financial support in coming years for child care, and I welcome that, too. Therefore, I will not support any of the Opposition amendments, but I am happy to support the Government new clauses.

Meg Hillier: On new clause 10, the Minister made great play of introducing tax-free child care, but she should be clearer in her closing remarks about what exactly that means, as I fear she is misdescribing something. What she seems to be proposing is that after people have passed through many hoops, including having both parents working and receiving certain levels of income, 20% is paid, which is not tax-free for the higher rate taxpayer. I want her to clarify this point: she talked about those paying additional tax not qualifying, so will she explain what tax threshold this will and will not apply to, so people who might be affected can know about that?
	Amazingly, this scheme has managed to unite The Daily Telegraph and the Labour party in criticism. That is some achievement, and I applaud the Minister on it, but it shows that there is a degree of muddle. The scheme is for couples or single parents where both work, but there are many other questions about it—I look forward to the regulations being laid so we can get to the details. What about where one partner was working but is unemployed or sick and unable to work, perhaps for a long period, or is retired, which is not beyond the bounds of possibility? Does the Minister have any plans to extend this as a general policy to parents of over-fives? A chef in my constituency on £15,000 or so a year raised with me the challenges of getting child care out of hours, a situation faced by many people, both with over-fives and with under-fives. I hope that she will give us some indication of her thinking on this matter. Will she tell us when she is planning to lay regulations on this issue, so that we can all be alert in order to tackle that?
	On new clauses 6 and 7, I will be generous to the Minister. She said that the fact that she has lost support—perhaps could not corral support across Whitehall—is not stopping her push for “affordable, quality child care available to all.” On that last sentence she and I are united as one, but, sadly, I disagree with her approach. If that really was what was being proposed, I would be a greater supporter of hers, but I am concerned about misrepresentation: little ideas presented as big solutions. We need a longer-term vision about child care provision for our under-fives and our older children, and we must ensure that we see that as an investment in those young
	people and, in particular, in women, in enabling them to work. However, this is not the time to get into that debate.
	On childminder agencies, I am not going to get into the issue about ratios, because my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) raised it very effectively. The proposal was never popular. I was even stopped in the street about it in my constituency by parents and carers who were very concerned about it—it was that much of a worry. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) said about that worry being something that Ministers need to think about when proposing ideas that have not been agreed properly within their own Government, let alone anywhere else.
	I have some concerns about the proposals on agencies for childminders, and I have referred to the parallel with older people’s care, where private agencies came in and reduced the quality of care. That is a legacy of the late Lady Thatcher’s years in government and it has not improved in all that time. I do not want private companies to come in, cream off a profit and cut the income of the childminders, who, in my area, consider themselves as small businesses. The number of childminders has reduced because a lot were on the list for local authorities but were not active, so as soon as that list was tidied up they dropped off it. A number of those to whom that happened were poor quality and did not want to have the scrutiny of Ofsted or any other authority, because they were the “pile ’em high, stack ’em cheap” sort of childminder that the Minister seems to favour.
	Hackney childminders, a very professional group, are united about the achievements that they have personally brought about and the benefits for young people in my area, and about the fact that the bad childminders have been run out of town. We do not want to go back to those bad old days. I am a mother of three and I know that I can stand here in the House now only because of my excellent child care. Over the years it has not always been so good, but there are times when one really worries, and one cannot work while worrying about children not being in a safe place.

Andy Sawford: My hon. Friend speaks passionately about childminders in Hackney. The Northamptonshire Childminding Association was also clear that it thought that this proposal would reduce quality and increase cost, so that experience is consistent with hers.

Meg Hillier: That is my worry. What exactly is an “agency”? We hear one description from bits of government and other descriptions from some of the organisations outside, including Ofsted. If the Minister is saying, as she has indicated, that some part of this move is about sharing professional experience and providing support to professional colleagues, I can tell her that my childminder network in Hackney does that very effectively in any case, so does it count as an agency? I have suggested that it thinks about setting one up. If it was to work in collaboration with the local authority or with the local Sure Start centres in smaller areas, would it then count as an agency? In the attempts to trial some of the elements, is the Minister being prescriptive or is she allowing 1,000 flowers to bloom? If it is the latter, what is to prevent the bad, rapacious private agencies from
	coming in, taking over, dominating in an area and becoming a local monopoly? There is a real concern about that. Will childminders have to join? The position on that is unclear, so perhaps she will give us some information on it. There is some benefit to professional experience sharing and professional support, but not at the costs that I have outlined. Will the Minister tell the House the timetable for the regulations, which she said would be coming very soon?
	I will leave my comments there, but this is an important issue. My constituency is one of the youngest in the country; over a fifth of residents are under 16. I think I speak with some authority on their behalf. For them, the Bill, and these changes, make a very big difference.

Elizabeth Truss: We have had a wide-ranging debate on the various child care issues, but one point that I think we can all agree on is that there is an urgent need for high-quality, affordable child care in this country. At the moment, many working families are struggling to afford their child care, and I can assure the House that the Government are fully committed to improving the situation. Tax-free child care, which is the key policy that we have been promoting in the Bill, will contribute to that.
	I would particularly like to thank the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) for his very constructive comments, particularly on the point about our tax-free child care scheme. I want to reassure the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) that “tax-free” refers to the 20% that parents will benefit by. The critical point is that it is open to many more families.
	I understand the hon. Members want to move on to the next debate so, without further ado, I shall finish.
	Question put and agreed to.
	New clause 10 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Regulation of child performance

‘(1) In section 37 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 (Restriction on persons under 16 taking part in public performances, etc.) the words “under the compulsory school leaving age” shall be inserted after the word “child” in subsection (1).
	(2) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
	“(2A) In this section, “Performance” means the planned participation by a child aged under the compulsory school leaving age in a public entertainment production, unless that participation—
	(a) involves risks that are no greater than the risks faced by that child in the ordinary course of his life and does not require the child to be absent from school or requires an absence from school of not more than four days in a six month period and such absence is authorised by the school;
	(b) involves the child doing that which he would do in any event in the ordinary course of his life; or
	(c) involves the creation of audio-visual content where there is an overriding public interest in the child’s participation.”.
	(3) Subsection (3)(a) of that section shall be repealed.
	(4) After subsection (5) of that section there shall be inserted—
	“(5A) Regulations under this section shall provide for the local authority to give reasons for any refusal of a licence under this section and shall specify any mitigating action which would be required to allow a licence to be issued.
	(5B) A refusal of a local authority to grant a licence may be reversed on appeal.”.
	(5) Subsection (6) of that section shall be repealed.
	(6) After subsection (7) the following shall be inserted—
	“(7A) A licence granted by a local authority shall be transferrable to another local authority if the child moves residence from one local authority area to another.”.
	(7) Section 38 of the Act (Restriction on licences for performances by children under 14) shall be repealed.
	(8) After section 39 of the Act, there shall be inserted—
	“39A Presumption that a licence should be issued
	(1) There shall be a presumption that a licence shall be issued unless there is identifiable potential harm that cannot be mitigated by any other action.
	(2) For the purposes of this section—
	(a) “identifiable potential harm” shall be any outcome that acts adversely against the wellbeing of the child;
	(b) “mitigated” shall mean such reasonable action that secures the safety of the child from the impact on their wellbeing; and
	(c) “wellbeing” includes the physical, mental and emotional condition and interests of the child.
	39B Guidance
	‘(1) The Secretary of State shall issue guidance to local authorities on the criteria for issuing licences and the conditions which shall apply to them; and this guidance may make different provision for children falling within different age bands applicable to their development age.
	(2) Guidance shall include a requirement for the local authority’s decision to be based on an assessment of the risks involved in the child’s participation in the performance.
	(3) Guidance shall include the safeguarding arrangements which shall be made in regard to participation in sporting activities; and in drawing up this guidance the Secretary of State shall consult sports governing bodies.
	(4) Guidance shall require the local authority, in considering the terms on which a licence is issued, to have regard to the number of days actually worked spread across a particular period.
	(5) Guidance shall require local authorities to provide for on-line applications for licences, to deal with all licences in time if submitted at least 10 days before they are to come into effect, or five days in respect of a repeated application.
	(6) Guidance shall provide for local authorities to inspect sites where children taking part in performances are to be accommodated, if they will be residing alongside unconnected adults.
	(7) Guidance shall provide for local authorities to disregard absence in connection with licensed performances in school records for authorised absences.
	(8) Guidance shall provide that local authorities shall require that matrons or chaperones shall operate under standards accepted by the appropriate advisory bodies.
	(9) Guidance shall also include the circumstances in which it is appropriate to authorise a body of persons to organise a performance for which licences will not be required by virtue of section 37(3)(b) of this Act, including where the performers are of 13 years or upwards or if the body is an amateur body and has a nominated child protection person who has received appropriate training and is independent of the chaperone.
	(10) Guidance under this section shall be laid before Parliament and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament as if it were contained in a statutory instrument subject to such annulment.”.
	(9) Clause 42 of the Act (Licences for children and young persons performing abroad) shall be amended by inserting after subsection (1)—
	“(1A) Licences under section 25 of the principal Act in relation to performances as defined under this Act shall be issued by local authorities rather than as specified in the principal Act.”.
	(10) In subsection (2) of that section the words after the word “granted” shall be replaced by the words “regardless of the age of the child”.
	(11) In the Children (Performances) Regulations 1968 (SI 1968/1728)—
	(a) In Regulation 8 (Medical examinations) in paragraph (2), the words “performance taking place within a period of six months from the date of the said medical examination” shall be replaced by the words “later performance”.
	(b) At the end of Regulation 10 (Education) there shall be inserted—
	“(6) The child’s parents or guardians must inform the child’s school of any days on which the child will be absent by reason of taking part in performances.”.
	(c) In Regulation 12(3) (maximum number of other children a matron shall have charge of), “eleven” shall be replaced by “nine”.
	(d) At the end of Regulation 12 (Matrons) there shall be inserted—
	“(7) A matron in respect of a performance organised by an amateur body who is unpaid shall not require local authority approval provided that he or she is CRB-checked and is independent of the nominated child protection person.”.
	(e) Regulation 17 (Further medical examinations) shall cease to have effect.’.—(Tim Loughton.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 4—Continuing support for former foster children—
	‘Section 23C of the Children Act 1989 (continuing functions in respect of former relevant children) is amended by the insertion of the following subsections after subsection (5).
	“(5ZA) The assistance given under subsection (4)(c) shall include the continuation of accommodation with the former local authority foster parent, unless—
	(a) the former relevant child states that he or she does not wish to continue residing in such accommodation, or
	(b) the former local authority foster parent does not wish to continue to provide accommodation, or
	(c) it is not reasonably practicable to arrange such accommodation.
	(5ZB) ‘Former local authority foster parent’ means a local authority foster parent within the meaning of section 22C(12) with whom the former relevant child, as a looked after child, was placed under section 22C(6)(a) or (b).”.’.
	New clause 5—Assessment and support of young carers—
	‘(1) Where it appears to a local authority that a child within their area may provide or be about to provide care to an adult or a child who is disabled, the authority must—
	(a) assess whether the child has needs for support relating to their caring role (or is likely to have such needs in the future); and
	(b) if the child is found to have such needs, set out what those needs are (or are likely to be in the future).
	(2) Having carried out an assessment under subsection (1) the authority must meet those needs for support which it considers to be necessary to meet in order to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare.
	(3) Having carried out an assessment under subsection (1), a local authority must also consider whether the adult is or may be eligible for assessment under the Care Act 2013, and if so must ensure such an assessment is carried out unless that adult objects.
	(4) Having carried out an assessment under subsection (1) a local authority must consider whether, in the case of a child who is caring for a disabled child, the child being cared for requires an assessment under the Children Act 1989 and if so shall carry out that assessment unless the person with parental responsibility for that child objects.
	(5) The Secretary of State shall issue guidance in relation to the duties set out above having consulted with persons whom the Secretary of State considers to be appropriate, the said guidance to be issued under section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970.
	(6) Any service provided by an authority in the exercise of functions conferred on them under this section may be provided for the family or for any member of the child’s family, and may include—
	(a) services to the adult the child is providing care to meet the adult’s needs for care and support; and
	(b) services to the adult to enhance their parenting capacity.
	If such services are provided with a view to safeguarding and promoting the child’s welfare.’.
	New clause 11—General duty of local authorities to co-operate to secure sufficient accommodation for looked after children—
	‘(1) The Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 22G (General duty of local authority to secure sufficient accommodation for looked after children), insert the following new section:
	“22H General duty of local authorities to co-operate to secure sufficient accommodation for looked after children
	(1) It is the general duty of a local authority to take steps in co-operation with neighbouring local authorities that secure, so far as reasonably practicable, the outcomes in subsections (2) and (3).
	(2) The first outcome applies to the children defined in subsection (3) of section 22G in respect of whom the local authority are unable to secure the outcome defined in subsection (2) of that section.
	(3) The first outcome is that the local authority is able to secure accommodation for those children that—
	(a) is within a neighbouring authority’s area; and
	(b) meets the need of those children.
	(4) The second outcome applies to the children defined in subsection (3) of section 22G in respect of whom a neighbouring local authority is unable to secure the outcome defined in subsection (2) of that section.
	(5) The second outcome is that the local authority is able to secure accommodation for those children that—
	(a) is within the authority’s area; and
	(b) meets the need of those children.”.’.
	New clause 12—General duty of local authority to secure sufficient early help services—
	‘(1) It is the general duty of a local authority to take steps that secure, so far as reasonably practicable, the outcome in subsection (2).
	(2) The outcome is that the local authority is able to provide the children and young people mentioned in subsection (3) and their families with provision of early help services that—
	(a) are within the authority’s area or a neighbouring authority’s area; and
	(b) meet the needs of those children and young people and their families.
	(3) The children and young people referred to in subsection (2) are those—
	(a) who live within the local authority’s area, or
	(b) that the local authority is looking after.
	(4) In this section—
	“early help services” means services to children under 6 and their families, and services to children and young people (of whatever age) and their families early in the emergence of a problem;
	“young people” means people under 25.’.
	New clause 13—Duty of local safeguarding children boards to undertake serious reviews—
	‘(1) Section 14 of the Children Act 2004 (Functions and procedure of Local Safeguarding Children Boards) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (2), insert—
	“(2A) Functions of review under subsection (2) shall include a duty to undertake serious case reviews at the direction of the Secretary of State.”.’.
	New clause 14—Part-time independent educational institutions to have no right to give corporal punishment—
	‘(1) Schedule 1 to the Education and Skills Act 2008 (Minor and consequential amendments) is amended as follows.
	(2) In sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 9, insert the following words at the end of inserted subsection (7B):
	“except that it applies in relation to this section as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of section 92 of that Act there were substituted the following words “for any amount of time during an academic year, no matter how little”.”.’.
	New clause 15—Return from care—
	‘(1) The Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 22C (Ways in which looked after children are to be accommodated and maintained), insert the following new section:
	“22CA Return home support services for looked after children returning home to the care of their parents/others with parental responsibility
	(1) Whenever a local authority decides that a looked after child should return to the care of its parent, the local authority must assess and monitor the support needs of the child and the parent for as long as is necessary to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare.
	(2) If after carrying out an assessment in accordance with subsection (1) above, the local authority decides that the child or the parent has support needs, they must provide a child in care, and, in the case of formerly-accommodated children, offer to provide, ‘return home support services’ to meet the identified support needs for as long as is necessary to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare.
	(3) Whenever the local authority provides ‘return home support services’ under subsection (2) above, they must prepare a personal budget if asked to do so by the parent or the child, with a view to the recipient being involved in agreeing and securing those services.”.’.
	New clause 16—Provision of further assistance to care leavers up to the age of 25—
	‘(1) Section 23CA of the Children Act 1989 (Further assistance to pursue education or training) is amended as follows.
	(2) At the end of the section heading insert “or for welfare purposes”.
	(3) In subsection (1)(a), at the end, insert “and”.
	(4) In subsection (1)(b), omit the last “and”.
	(5) Omit subsection (1)(c).
	(6) In subsection (4), after “training”, insert “or welfare”.
	(7) In subsection (5)(a), omit the last “or”.
	(8) In subsection (5)(b), after “training”, insert “or welfare”.
	(9) At the end of subsection (5), add the following new paragraphs—
	“(c) providing advice and support in relation to his welfare; or
	(d) making a grant in exceptional circumstances to enable him to meet expenses connected with his welfare.”.’.
	New clause 17—Amendments to the Health Act 2006—
	‘(1) The Health Act 2006 is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 8, insert—
	“8A Offence of failing to prevent smoking in a private vehicle when children are present
	(1) It is the duty of any person who drives a private vehicle to ensure that the vehicle is smoke-free whenever a child or children under the age of 18 are in such vehicle or part of such vehicle.
	(2) A person who fails to comply with the duty in subsection (1) commits an offence.
	(3) A person convicted of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine of £60.
	(4) The Secretary of State may introduce regulations to alter the level of penalty payable under subsection (3).
	(5) The Secretary of State shall update all relevant regulations regarding the offence created under subsection (2) within six months of this section coming into force.
	(3) In section 79(4)(a), leave out “or 8(7)” and insert “, 8(7), or 8A(4).”.’.
	New clause 18—Review of impact of under-occupancy penalty on prospective adopters, prospective special guardians and foster parents—
	‘Before the end of one year beginning with the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must—
	(a) carry out a review of the impact of the housing under-occupancy penalty on prospective adopters, prospective special guardians and foster parents, and
	(b) publish a report of the conclusions of the review.’.
	New clause 19—Arrangements to support child witnesses—
	‘(1) The Secretary of State shall by order introduce arrangements to establish specialist courts in cases where a child has been sexually abused or harmed, and where the child will be required to give evidence to the court, and to be examined by the court.
	(2) Arrangements made by order under subsection (1) above shall include arrangements to appoint intermediaries to support child witnesses in all court cases, and other measures to support child witnesses.’.
	New clause 20—Personal, social and health education in maintained schools—
	‘(1) In section 84(3) of the Education Act 2002 (curriculum foundation subjects for the first, second and third key stages), after paragraph (g) there is inserted—
	“(ga) personal, social and health education”.
	(2) In section 85(4) of the Education Act 2002 (curriculum foundation subjects for the fourth key stage), at the end there is inserted “, and
	(d) personal, social and health education.”
	(3) In section 74(1) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, which (when brought into force) will substitute a new section 85 in the Education Act 2002, in subsection (4) of that substituted section (foundation subjects for the fourth key stage), at the end there is inserted “, and
	(d) personal, social and health education.”
	(4) Before section 86 of the Education Act 2002 there is inserted—
	“85B Personal, social and health education
	(1) For the purposes of this Part, personal, social and health education (“PSHE”) shall include sex and relationship education, including information about same-sex relationships, sexual violence, domestic violence and sexual consent.
	(2) The National Curriculum for England is not required to specify attainment targets or assessment arrangements for PSHE (and section 84(1) has effect accordingly).
	(3) The Secretary of State for Education shall set out guidance to schools and colleges to ensure that a coherent approach to personal, social, health and economic education is developed, including between primary and secondary schools.
	(4) It is the duty of the governing body and head teacher of any school in which PSHE is provided in pursuance of this Part to secure that guidance issued under subsection (3) is followed and that—
	(a) information presented in the course of providing PSHE should be accurate and balanced;
	(b) PSHE is taught in a way that is appropriate to the ages of the pupils concerned and to their religious and cultural backgrounds, and reflects a reasonable range of religious, cultural and other perspectives;
	(c) PSHE is taught in a way that endeavours to promote equality, celebrate diversity, and emphasise the importance of both rights and responsibilities.
	(5) In the exercise of their functions under this Part so far as relating to PSHE, a local authority, governing body or head teacher shall have regard to any guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of State.”.
	(5) Section 403 of the Education Act 1996 (sex education: manner of provision) is amended as set out in subsections (6) to (9).
	(6) In subsection (1), for the words from the beginning to “at a maintained school” there is substituted “The governing body or other proprietor of any school to which this section applies, and its head teacher, must take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that sex and relationships education is given to registered pupils at the school and that”.
	(7) After that subsection there is inserted—
	“(1ZA) The schools to which this section applies are—
	(a) maintained schools;
	(b) city technology colleges;
	(c) city colleges for the technology of the arts;
	(d) Academies.
	A reference in this section or section 404 to the governing body of a school, in relation to a school within paragraph (b), (c) or (d), shall be read as a reference to the proprietor of the school.”.
	(8) In subsection (1A)—
	(a) for “when sex education is given to registered pupils at maintained schools” there is substituted “when sex and relationships education is given to registered pupils at schools to which this section applies”;
	(b) in paragraph (a), after “, and” there is inserted “learn the nature of civil partnership and the importance of strong and stable relationships.”;
	(c) paragraph (b) is omitted.
	(9) In subsection (1C), for “sex education” there is substituted “sex and relationships education”,
	(10) In section 579 of the Education Act 1996 (general interpretation), in the definition of “sex education” in subsection (1)—
	(a) for “sex education” there is substituted “sex and relationships education”;
	(b) at the end there is inserted “but does not include education about human reproduction provided as part of any science teaching;”.
	(11) For section 405 of the Education Act 1996 there is substituted—
	“405 Exemption from sex and relationships education
	(1) If a pupil of sufficient maturity in attendance at a school to which section 403 applies requests to be wholly or partly excused from receiving sex and relationships education at the school, the pupil shall be so excused accordingly until the request is withdrawn.
	(2) The Secretary of State must in regulations define “sufficient maturity”.
	(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (2) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(4) The Secretary of State must lay draft regulations before Parliament before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”.’.
	New clause 22—Information sharing about live births—
	‘(1) NHS trusts should make arrangements to share with local authorities records of live births to parents resident in their area, to be used by the local authority for the purposes of identifying and contacting new families through children’s centres and any other early years outreach services it may operate.
	(2) The Secretary of State must, within a period of six months of Royal Assent to this Act, bring forward regulations placing consequential requirements on trusts and local authorities in exercising their duty under subsection (1), including, but not limited to—
	(a) the format of arrangements made;
	(b) the safeguarding of information;
	(c) the circumstances in which it would not be appropriate for a trust to provide information to local authorities;
	(d) the regularity of data transfers;
	(e) timescales within which a local authority must contact new families made known to it; and
	(f) any further requirements the Secretary of State deems necessary.
	(3) Local authorities must establish a pilot scheme to trial the registration of births within children’s centres, and evaluate the effectiveness of the scheme to—
	(a) identify and contact new families; and
	(b) enable children’s centres to reach more families, in particular those with children under the age of two, or who the local authority consider—
	(i) hard to reach, or
	(ii) vulnerable.’.
	New clause 25—Health bodies: duties with respect to young carers—
	‘(1) In exercising their general functions health bodies must—
	(a) promote and safeguard the well-being of young carers;
	(b) ensure that effective procedures exist to identify patients who are or are about to become carers;
	(c) ensure that effective procedures exist to identify patients who it may be reasonably assumed may be receiving care from a child or young person for whom they are responsible;
	(d) ensure that appropriate systems exist to ensure that carers receive appropriate information and advice; and
	(e) ensure that systems are in place to ensure that the relevant general medical services are rendered to their patients who are young carers, or to the young carers of their patients.
	(2) In relation to paragraphs (1)(b), (c) and (d), the Secretary of State may by regulations further provide for the strategies to be developed.’.
	New clause 26—Schools: duties with respect to young carers—
	‘(1) The appropriate authorities of schools must ensure that, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, they take all reasonable steps to ensure that there is in place a policy which—
	(a) identifies young carers within the school; and
	(b) makes arrangements for the provision within school of appropriate support to promote the well-being and improve the educational attainment of pupils who are young carers.
	(2) In discharging its duty under subsection (1), where appropriate the authority must—
	(a) consult with the family of the child or young person identified, or the young person themselves;
	(b) involve the local authority in which the identified pupil is ordinarily resident;
	(c) refer the identified pupil to additional services outside the school;
	(d) have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.
	(3) The “appropriate authority” for a school is—
	(a) in the case of a maintained school, the governing body;
	(b) in the case of an academy, the proprietor;
	(c) in the case of a pupil referral unit, the management committee.’.
	New clause 27—Further and higher educational institutions: duties with respect to student carers—
	‘(1) The responsible body of an institution to which this section applies must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, identify or make arrangements to identify student carers and have a policy in place on promoting the well-being of student carers.
	(2) This section applies to—
	(a) a university;
	(b) any other institution within the higher education sector;
	(c) an institution within the further education sector.
	(3) A responsible body is—
	(a) in the case of an institution in paragraphs (2)(a) or (b), the governing body;
	(b) in the case of a college of further education under the management of a board of management, the board of management;
	(c) in the case of any other college of further education, any board of governors of the college or any person responsible for the management of the college, whether or not formally constituted as a governing body or board of governors.
	(4) In discharging its duty under subsection (1), where appropriate the authority must—
	(a) consult with the family of the child or young person identified, or the young person themselves;
	(b) involve the local authority in which the identified pupil is ordinarily resident;
	(c) refer the identified student to additional services outside of the institution; and
	(d) have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.’.
	Amendment 33, in clause1,page1,leave out line 9 and insert—
	‘satisfied that C should be placed for adoption—’.
	Amendment 34, in clause2,page1,line15,at end insert—
	‘(1A) In subsection (4), after paragraph (f) insert—
	“(g) the child’s religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background, although this paragraph does not apply to an adoption agency in Wales, to which subsection (5) instead applies.”.’.
	Amendment 2, in clause3,page2,line22,at end insert—
	‘(1A) The Secretary of State may require local authorities to make arrangements with adoption agencies to compensate them for the cost of recruiting approved prospective adopters.’.
	Amendment 29, page2,line22,at end insert—
	‘(1A) Directions under subsection (1) may not be given before May 2017, being five years after the introduction of adoption scorecards.’.
	Amendment 3, page2,line32,leave out paragraph (c).
	Government amendments 9 and 16.
	Amendment 31, in clause9,page9,line8,at end insert—
	‘and section 23B (8A) and monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of that local authority in discharging its duties under section 23C (4B) and section 23CA and advising them on ways to improve.’.
	Amendment 32, page9,line11,at end add—
	‘(2) In the Children Act 1989, in section 23B after subsection (8) insert—
	(8A) The duty of local authorities under subsection (8) to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare, includes in particular a duty to promote the child’s educational achievement.”.’.
	Amendment 49, in clause10,page9,line16,at end insert—
	‘unless in the view of the court it is unreasonable to do so’.
	Amendment 35, in clause11,page10,line10,at end insert—
	‘(2B) “Involvement” is any kind of direct or indirect involvement that promotes the welfare of the child. It shall not be taken to mean any particular division of a child’s time.’.
	Amendment 50, page10,line10,at end insert—
	‘(2B) Involvement shall mean, but is not limited to, direct contact with a child by any means including supervised contact, indirect contact with a child by any means including letters or telephone or receiving information about a child from the other parent or a third party.’.
	Amendment 51, in clause12,page10,line35,at end add—
	‘(5) A child arrangements order that provides for a child to reside with a particular person is to be interpreted as granting rights of custody to that person.’.
	Amendment 5, in clause14,page13,line8,after ‘issued’, insert—
	‘unless the court considers it necessary in order to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare to permit additional time for the disposing of the application.’.
	Amendment 52, page13,line8,after ‘issued’, insert—
	‘unless in the view of the court it would be in the best interests of the child to set a different timetable’.
	Amendment 6, page13,line45,at end insert—
	‘or, having taken into consideration the safeguarding and promotion of the child’s welfare, following evidence presented to the court relating to a planned programme of intervention, such longer time period as the court deems appropriate.’.
	Amendment 36, in clause15,page14,line46,at end insert—
	‘(A1) Section 22 of the Children Act 1989 (general duty of local authority in relation to children looked after by them) is amended as follows.
	(B1) In subsection (4), after “proposing to look after,”, insert “including when making any fundamental change to the care plan before or after a care order has been made.”.’.
	Amendment 7, page15,line3,after ‘provisions’, insert ‘and sibling placement arrangements’.
	Amendment 8, page15,line6,at end insert—
	‘unless it deems such consideration necessary in assessing the permanence provisions of the section 31A plan for the child concerned and making the care order, taking into account the circumstances of the application and the safeguarding and promotion of the child’s welfare.’.
	Amendment 53, page15,line6,at end insert—
	‘but may do so when any matter is brought to the court’s attention by the child’s guardian’.
	Government amendments 10 to 15.

Tim Loughton: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for taking up most of the remaining debating time in reading out the list of the remaining new clauses and amendments in the group. It is unfortunate that we have a large group of new clauses and amendments here, covering a very wide variety of important subjects to do with personal, social and health education, foster care continuing support, young carers, care leaver assistants, birth registration, adoption and so on, and yet we are left with barely an hour, particularly for Back Benchers who have not had the opportunity in Committee to point out things that we think are missing from the Bill or things that could be improved. On Second Reading we were time-limited in our contributions, too. I have taken a lot of time in making that point, but it needed to be put on the record.
	I will speak as quickly as possible to the nine amendments and new clauses that I have tabled. In doing so, I want to signify my sympathy with new clause 4, tabled by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), on continuing support for foster children, which is important. I know there are various problems with the way in which the amendment has been fashioned. I support new clause 22, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), on birth registration improvements. I have a good deal of sympathy, as I said on Second Reading, with improvements to the Bill to assist young carers, particularly new clause 5.
	New clause 3, the lead amendment in the group, is the one I want to speak least about; in the circumstances, I will limit my comments. It relates to the performance regulations, which need to be brought into the 21st century. We did considerable work on that within the Department for Education. They are 50 years out of date. We only had to look at the “Britain’s Got Talent” finals and heats the other day to see that a number of child performers are now taking part in such talent shows. We need to be absolutely assured that children are able to perform—strut their stuff, demonstrate their talents—in a safe way that is appropriate to their growing-up stage, and are not being pushed into it.
	In the new clause I have set out in some detail the amendments that need to be made to the regulations, which were drafted in the 1960s. That is the result of a lot of work, done by members of the working group that I reassembled under Sarah Thane, who produced an excellent report at the tail end of the previous Government. Importantly, my new clause 3 also gives a practical and usable definition of “performance”, which the primary legislation fails to do, and really needs to do. I commend it to the Government. Although the consultation seemed to prove inconclusive, there is a clear wish to make sure that child performance regulations are brought up to date. The revelations about Jimmy Savile have only made that more urgent.
	New clause 11 is about ensuring the sufficiency of accommodation for children in care. This should be happening already under section 22 of the Children Act 1989, but it is not. Under that Act, we should be prioritising locally sourced accommodation for children in care. A number of working parties were set up last July, in my time in the Department for Education, to look at how we can improve the system. There is a real
	problem when 4,890 looked-after children are housed in children’s homes, 50% of which are concentrated in just three regions: the north-west, the west midlands and the south-east. Some 44% of children in those children’s homes are placed out of their placing area, 28% of them more than 20 miles away from it. The figure for all looked-after children is 12%. Little wonder that so many children—a disproportionate number—run away or go missing from many of these children’s residential homes.
	We need to take the opportunity of this legislation to make sure that we have much more robust guidance and instruction for local authorities about placing children much closer to where they come from, if that is possible without affecting their welfare—closer to anchor links with extended family members or friends—and making it possible for them to stay at the same school. It is crazy that we are spending more than £1 billion on placing 9% of the in-care population in children’s residential homes. That is from a total budget of just over £3 billion.
	New clause 11 would beef up the regulations for placing authorities. If they do not have economies of scale, they should look to federate with neighbouring authorities, so that they can set up or buy places closer to home—much more smart commissioning is required—rather than spot-purchasing, which makes for costly placements that are often not of the best. Too often, the placements end up in completely inappropriate areas, often in cheaper, coastal properties—my constituency of Worthing is subject to this—where there are serious concerns about the safety of the environment in which children have been placed.
	At the beginning of my remarks, I should have declared my interest as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I have done so with regard to all my amendments in this group, for safety’s sake.
	New clause 12 introduces a sufficiency duty for early help services. This is not a new proposal; it was recommendation 10 in Eileen Munro’s excellent report of 2011. I have structured the new clause to mirror the sufficiency duty for children in care that I have just mentioned. In her recommendation, Eileen Munro said:
	“The Government should place a duty on local authorities and statutory partners to secure the sufficient provision of local early help services for children, young people and families.”
	The authorities and partners should
	“specify the range of professional help available to local children, young people and families…specify how they will identify children who are suffering or likely to suffer…set out the local resourcing of the early help services”
	and
	“lead to the identification of the early help that is needed by a particular child”.
	The reason for that is clear: preventive services do more to reduce abuse and neglect than reactive services. Co-ordination of services is important to reduce confusion, inefficiency and ineffectiveness in service provision.
	We have an Early Intervention Foundation, but we do not have an early intervention grant any more, so it is all the more important that we go ahead as quickly as possible with Eileen Munro’s recommendation 10. It is two years since that recommendation was made. In their response to it, the Government said that they accepted all its principles. It is about time to get on with it, and the new clause would be a practical one in the
	Bill to give a clear indication to local authorities that early help is an important part of caring for vulnerable children. It is a social gain and it will be a financial gain from avoiding the costs when those children get into trouble later on if they are not given the appropriate support and care that they need at an early stage.
	New clause 13 is about serious case reviews. The Children Act 1989 introduced a local authority duty to investigate when a child who lives or is found in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm. The guidance produced in 1991 instructed area child protection committees to conduct investigations or part 8 reviews. They were beefed up into serious case reviews after the Laming inquiry and parts of the Children Act in 2004. Again, they were beefed up in the “working together” revisions in 2009, and in June 2010, the new Government required all future serious case reviews to be published in full, subject to various criteria and subject to anonymity and redaction. That was the right thing to do.
	The problem, as I warned at the time, is that the Government and the Minister do not have the power to force local safeguarding children boards to commission those reports in the first place. They have the power to force them to publish them once produced, but not the power to commission them in the first place. I am afraid that the figures have borne out my concerns, because between June 2010 and November 2012, some 147 serious case reviews were initiated by local safeguarding children’s boards. In each of the previous two years, the number of serious case reviews was around 130 to 136, so we have effectively halved the number of serious case reviews. Alas, that is not because the number of serious incidents happening has halved. I fear there are still far too many unnecessary deaths and far too much child cruelty happening. But serious case reviews that should have been commissioned have not been.
	I very much welcome the announcement last week of the setting up of a serious case review panel. I particularly welcome the inclusion of Nicholas Dann, head of international development at the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, which was an interesting analogy about how accidents/incidents happen and how we learn from them. But we need to disseminate best practice and the lessons of poor practice as well. That body should retain, monitor and approve a list of suitable authors, and make sure that their qualifications are sufficient that they can continue to be commissioned to author serious case reviews. That panel will have the power to challenge local safeguarding boards not initiating SCRs, but it does not have any statutory teeth, and this is the only opportunity we will have to give statutory teeth to the Secretary of State to be able to say, “You must commission a serious case review,” when there is an overwhelming case where an incident qualifies for one.
	New clause 14 is a contentious one that I shall speak briefly on. It is traditional for any children’s Bill to have some opportunity to raise the issue of smacking, and I am amazed that no other amendments have been tabled on that subject. I am not suggesting any changes to smacking. I do not support any changes in the way that parents chastise their children, but there is a problem with madrassahs and other supplementary schools. It is a difficult problem that has been left on the back burner. It was addressed by Sir Roger Singleton when he produced a report for the last Government in
	March 2010, entitled “Physical punishment: improving consistency and protection”. Sir Roger was quite clear in the report:
	“I am wholly satisfied that the safeguarding protection in relation to physical punishment which children enjoy in full-time schools should be extended to all the other settings where they learn, play, worship and are cared for. A straightforward ban on the smacking of all children engaged in activities outside the context of the family will be easy to understand and send an unambiguous message of what is not permitted to those organisations and settings where doubt exists or latitude is sought.”
	His recommendation was:
	“The current ban on physical punishment in schools and other children’s settings should be extended to include any form of advice, guidance, teaching, training, instruction, worship, treatment or therapy and to any form of care or supervision which is carried out other than by a parent or member of the child’s own family or household.”
	I know this issue is fraught with problems—I battled with it, together with the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), in our time at the Department for Education—but given the clear examples of abuse we have seen in some madrassahs, which have been revealed in television programmes and by investigative journalism, it should not continue to fester on the Secretary of State’s desk. New clause 14 is a probing amendment aimed at getting the subject back on the radar, because it has been more than three years since those clear recommendations were made and nothing has been done about them.

Jeremy Corbyn: Do the hon. Gentleman’s proposals relate only to the schools he referred to as madrassahs, or do they also relate to supplementary schools and weekend schools?

Tim Loughton: The new clause is very broad and could effectively cover other supplementary schools, as they are termed. I know that this subject is fraught with problems. No doubt the new clause will not be a satisfactory solution ultimately, but I think it is a working basis on which to take the matter forward, rather than continuing to ignore it.
	New clause 15, which has the full support of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, relates to support services for those returning from care. There has been a big focus, rightly, on improving the whole adoption regime. The Government announced a little while ago that £150 million will be taken from what was the early intervention grant to provide adoption support services. It is really important that we have the right degree of support around placements to ensure that they stick.
	We hear a lot about adoption support services, improving care homes and better training for foster carers, but 37% of children in care return to their birth parents, and too many of them then return to care after the initial intensive preparation and support because of lack of ongoing support services. In 2012 that affected 10,000 children who returned to the birth parents—treble the number of children who get adopted. We know that that instability, that revolving door going in and out of care, can be really damaging to those vulnerable children. The NSPCC has put together a very credible case. It has totted up the cost of children remaining in the care system against the cost of giving them proper support
	packages back with their families, where that is the most appropriate destination for them and only where it is in their best interests.
	New clause 15 merits serious consideration. It would provide the right social outcome for vulnerable children in care, but it would also save an awful lot of money if we get it right. I am sure that the Minister, who has great expertise in and knowledge of dealing with different types of children in the care system, will be supportive. It is also supported by an interesting paper produced last November by the Social Care Institute for Excellence, which said:
	“Returning from public care to live with a parent is the most likely ‘permanence option’ but, for maltreated children, the least successful. There are wide variations between local authorities in terms of the resources allocated to decision-making about reunification, and the quality of practice.”
	Finally, I have tabled three amendments on adoption. I have mentioned why adoption needs to be a priority. Many good things have happened in the past two and a half years on adoption, and I am very pleased that the Minister is committed to carrying that work on. The number of children given the opportunity to be adopted has been increasing, although numbers alone are not the be-all and end-all; it is the quality of the placements that really matters. The adoption scorecards that were introduced a year ago lay out with full transparency how well an authority is doing compared with other authorities across a whole range of measures. We have the adoption gateway to help recruitment, we are speeding up legal proceedings for children left in limbo, we are bringing in and beefing up fostering for adoption, we have the adoption support services that I mentioned, and many other things are happening. All that amounts to a very serious structural overhaul, and it is beginning to work, so we do not want to go and mess it up. I fear that in this Bill, the Government, with the best intentions, are going too far.
	On the thorny question of assessment and recruitment, many local authorities do not do it well or nearly well enough; many independent adoption agencies do it much better. However, do we really need a blanket power that threatens to take away from every local authority in the country the capacity to recruit, assess and approve the functions of adopters? There should be the underlying threat that the Secretary of State has the power to take away that capacity from individual authorities that just do not “get it”—that continue to fail to improve their adoption support services and therefore fail these vulnerable children.
	However, a blanket threat to take away the right from all local authorities will disincentivise them from continuing to improve, and they may well not continue to invest in good recruitment and assessment. The voluntary sector is way off having the capacity to pick up those sorts of activities in the necessary numbers. In amendment 29, I ask for a breathing space—a moratorium of five years before clause 3 is introduced. Amendment 3 would take out the blanket provision, which is not needed at this time. It is a bit of a slap in the face for local authorities, a good number of which, though not nearly enough, are doing a good job and do “get it”. However, the Secretary of State should have the power to take that right away from those which do not.
	My final amendment deals with a very practical point. One of the things holding back independent agencies from recruiting more adopters is that they do not get paid until there is an inter-agency fee when a child is placed with a couple. If we were to pay a bounty fee so that they were paid for their time and effort in training and recruiting every appropriate adopter couple who passed muster, that would enable them to go out and recruit more; many independent adoption agencies do that well. This would be a good, practical measure to recruit more adopters, whom we all know we desperately need. Please let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
	These are practical measures that would enhance the Bill, and many things that were not included in it. It is a great pity that we have not had more opportunity to debate these matters properly.

Lisa Nandy: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who, like so many Members, is incredibly passionate about these issues and did an enormous amount to shape the Bill in its current form. Many Members here today are deeply frustrated that they have not yet had any opportunity to scrutinise some really important areas of the Bill, and I share their frustration. I will attempt to be as brief as I can so that as many of them can speak as possible while we make sure that we do this Bill and these children justice.
	When we scrutinised the Bill on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and I said that it would come to be characterised as much by what was not in it as what was. That is the motivation behind our new clause 20, which would ensure that sex and relationship education is available to all children across the country. The nation has been shocked by child grooming scandals where young girls have been systematically exploited by older men—often men who they thought were taking care of them.
	Research by the Children’s Commissioner has found that far too many young people—boys and girls—do not know what a good relationship looks like. Worryingly, it also found that many of them did not even understand the concept of consent. Our view is that we are failing to equip young people with the knowledge, skills and resilience they need to keep themselves safe. We must do much more to tackle child abuse, but more importantly we must prevent it from happening in the first place.
	Young people are increasingly exposed to risks online. We think that the question is not whether we can afford to talk to them about issues as difficult as this, but whether we can afford not to. We think that all children should have the opportunity to access age-appropriate sex and relationship education. In a departmental report on personal, social, health and economic education, young people said that they valued the chance to express views safely and ask questions, and felt that that had improved their relationship with others. We believe that parents should retain the right to withdraw children aged 15 or under because they know their children best, but equally we know that the vast majority of parents would like their children to have access to sex and relationship education. For children whose parents do not talk to them about these issues, this could be critical in keeping them safe, especially given that a third of
	girls say that they have experienced unwanted touching. We are keen for the Government to support our proposed new clause 20.
	Amendment 33, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West, seeks to ensure that we do not put speed before getting it right for children. It would ensure that children are not placed in fostering or adoption placements either before it has been decided that adoption is the plan or, in the Minister’s words, as early as the first week in care. We debated this at length in Committee, so I will not labour the point, but that debate gave me more cause for concern, not less.
	It seems to me that placing children in fostering or adoption placements before the local authority has decided that that should be the plan is more disruptive for the child. Conducting an informal matching process, possibly within a week, before placing the child and then considering their wishes and feelings about whether adoption is suitable and the placement is the right one runs the risk of putting more people off adopting, as many Members have pointed out, and of more adoption breakdowns, which plays into children’s biggest fears that this for-ever home may not be the right one. As always, when we talked to children about this, they felt strongly that their views should be heard.

John Hemming: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lisa Nandy: I am sorry, but I cannot give way because a number of Back Benchers have sat through this entire debate and are desperate to get in. I wish the hon. Gentleman well in doing so.
	In Committee, the Minister said that further statutory guidance would be provided to local authorities that are making this important decision. Although that does not alleviate all my concerns, the guidance will clearly be central to the practical effects of clause 1. Why have we not yet seen a draft of the guidance, and when will we see it?
	Amendment 34, which stands in my name, relates to the consideration of ethnicity in adoption placements. The Minister expressed concern in Committee that placing ethnicity on the welfare checklist, as we are suggesting, will put undue weight on it. He said:
	“As soon as one tries to specify particular elements of a child’s characteristics in an exhaustive list, one then starts to prioritise one characteristic over another.”––[Official Report, Children and Families Public Bill Committee, 12 March 2013; c. 205.]
	I want him to consider briefly that the opposite may be the problem.
	The Minister referred to research by Birmingham city council that looked at the experience of prospective adopters. It certainly emerged that a problem with practice—aggressive questioning, for example—and not with legislation had put people off. The research also demonstrated, however, that the majority of adopters—a staggering 90%—had expressed a strong preference to adopt a child with a similar ethnicity and that it was the failure to explore such factors with potential adopters that prevented children from black and minority ethnic backgrounds from being considered. In fact, in the one case in which a social worker did do that, the prospective parents went on to successfully adopt a child with a different ethnicity.
	I reiterate that the amendment would not ensure that children were matched only with prospective adopters with the same background as them. Crucially, however, it would ensure that thoughtful consideration was given to ethnicity so that such factors were explored and we did not put off people from adopting a child who could otherwise find a loving home because they mistakenly thought that they would not be right for that child, which we think is a crying shame.
	Amendment 35 is designed to ensure that we do not unwittingly create misconceptions for parents. We agree with the Government, as we said at length in Committee, that it is critical to most children to have an ongoing, good-quality relationship with their mum and dad, but we are concerned about the practical impact of clause 11.
	I will not rehearse all the debates that we had in Committee, but the Minister was right to say that he did not want to be too prescriptive about what involvement meant. That is why our amendment would define what involvement is not, in line with the explanatory notes. It is important that that is put in the Bill and that no room is left for doubt, given that there have already been headlines in this country and that misconceptions have been created. I hope that the Minister will accept that amendment.
	I do not need to rehearse why new clause 19 is so important, as it would prevent the harrowing and aggressive questioning of young witnesses in court. This morning, we received the welcome announcement that the Government are trialling pre-recorded cross-examination in Leeds, Liverpool and Kingston upon Thames. I am sure that the Minister appreciates the urgency of this matter as more child grooming cases are brought to trial. Will he say when the pilots will start, how they will be evaluated, whether there will be any measures alongside them to prevent the aggressive questioning that we have heard so much about and how soon they will be rolled out?
	As I am sure the Minister is aware, the implementation of section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 alone will not be enough to support vulnerable witnesses. New clause 19 also proposes specialist court sittings for children who have been sexually abused, with trained judges and barristers, and the restriction of multiple cross-examinations. Will he say whether there will be a cap on the number of lawyers who may cross-examine a witness? I would be grateful if he could give more information about that.
	I tabled new clause 18 notwithstanding our strong opposition to the under-occupation penalty, known to some as the bedroom tax. We are extremely concerned that that policy will put people off taking care of children whom they otherwise would have looked after because of the financial implications. We want to ensure that, at a time when Ministers share our concerns about the acute shortage of foster carers and adopters, we do not make the situation worse. We were struck by the evidence from Adoption UK about the problems for prospective adopters and special guardians, which was provided by Grandparents Plus. We are very concerned that the National Housing Federation estimates that the discretionary housing fund will fall short by £100 million.
	We thought that the Minister had allayed our concerns about foster carers in Committee until it transpired the following day that the Government’s second change of heart meant that only one foster child would be covered, despite the fact that many foster carers look after more than one child. I was grateful for the Minister’s assurance that he would monitor the impact of the policy. Given that it has come into force and that he assured us in Committee that it would be monitored from April, will he say whether the Department has begun the monitoring programme, how it is going about it, whether there is any independence in the evaluation and, if so, who is conducting it? What, if any, evidence has been collected over the past two and a half months, and when does the Department expect to publish a report? Will he ensure that the report is made available to Members of the House as soon as it is published, given how important this matter is to many Members from all parts of the House and given that it affects vulnerable children in every constituency?
	Finally, amendments 36 and 37 would ensure that children’s views and sibling arrangements are taken into account when courts scrutinise or change a care plan. Although we support the Government’s efforts to focus courts on the long-term aspects of care plans, we are concerned that, in the real world, the acute pressures on social workers, independent reviewing officers and guardians will mean that important aspects may be missed. Does the Minister have anything concrete to report from the discussion that he was holding with independent reviewing officers about how he will alleviate that pressure? Court scrutiny has helped social workers to ensure that they have access to resources and has changed care plans to allow sibling contact. I was grateful for the Minister’s assurances in Committee that there is nothing to prevent courts from looking at this matter, but given the pressure that family courts are under, especially after the legal aid cuts, we think that it is too important to leave to chance.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to set out those points, but immensely disappointed at the lack of scrutiny that we have given these aspects of the Bill today. I would now like to give other people the opportunity to contribute.

Fiona Bruce: I rise to speak to new clause 20 as a parent of two boys, one of whom is still at school and one of whom left recently. I also want to speak for the many parents in my constituency who, like me, are concerned about the provision of sex education in this country.
	I am pleased that new clause 20 proposes to redefine sex education as “sex and relationship education”, although I would have put it the other way around, with the emphasis on relationships rather than sex. After agreeing on the wording, I part company with those who tabled the new clause.
	I want to concentrate on one aspect of the new clause: the implications of the proposal for a centralised curriculum. In March, the current PSHE legal framework was given backing in this House by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), when she published the results of the Government’s recent PSHE review. She stated:
	“To allow teachers the flexibility to deliver high-quality PSHE we consider it unnecessary to provide new standardised frameworks or programmes of study. Teachers are best placed to understand
	the needs of their pupils and do not need additional central prescription.”—[ Official Report , 21 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 52WS.]
	I believe that was right and that the curriculum centralisation that would inevitably follow endeavours such as new clause 20 would not advance the cause of PSHE or, critically, the interests of our young people. To clarify, we currently have compulsory sex education in secondary schools, but governors of primary schools are at liberty to authorise the teaching of sex education if they think it appropriate.

Stella Creasy: I understand that the hon. Lady’s concern is about a centralised curriculum. What does she make of her Government’s proposal to put gardening and composting on the national curriculum, as well as financial education and compound interest? Surely along with those two Cs we should also put consent.

Fiona Bruce: I am vice-chair of the all-party group on financial education for young people and I hugely welcome that proposal. I think it is an essential ingredient of enabling our young people to mature and face society when they leave school.
	At present we do not have a centralised curriculum, and I cannot support proposals for the centralisation of the curriculum as suggested by the champions of the new clause. Research demonstrates that children and young people want to receive their initial sex and relationship education from their parents and families, with school and other adults building on that later. I am not naive and I fully appreciate that many parents do not fulfil their parental duties in that respect. That is why it is essential that we have sex education in senior schools, and I do not deny the importance of that for one minute, for many of the reasons mentioned by the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) when she introduced the new clause.

Diana Johnson: What does the hon. Lady make of the recent Ofsted report on the teaching of PSHE, which mentions its variability around the country, particularly in sex and relationship education?

Fiona Bruce: I am glad the hon. Lady raised that point, because if some of the suggestions that I will come to in my speech were implemented, we would have much better sex education throughout the country than we do at present. She is right. Much still needs to be done, and I said in my introductory remarks that I am concerned about the standard of sex education in our schools, although I do not believe a centralised curriculum will improve that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Fiona Bruce: I will not take any other interventions, because it would reduce the time for other speakers.
	The Department for Education’s sex and relationship education guidance honours the involvement of parents, making plain the need for parental involvement in the content of PSHE. It states:
	“Parents are the key people in teaching their children about sex and relationships, maintaining the culture and ethos of the family, helping their children cope with the emotional and physical aspects of growing up, and preparing them for the challenges and
	responsibilities that sexual maturity brings…schools should always work in partnership with parents, consulting them regularly on the content of sex and relationship education programmes.”
	The majority of respondents to the recent Government consultation on PSHE believed that parental engagement was crucial, as was providing parents with every possible and practical opportunity to interact and engage with PSHE provision.
	Although we should understand the important role that sex education provides, we should not aspire for it narrowly within one context. Current procedures provide a mechanism for drawing in parents who perhaps do not talk to their children about sex and relationships, and encourage those who do to continue with that. At present, all secondary schools must provide sex education by law, and although there is no centrally determined curriculum, governors and teachers, in conversation and consultation with parents, should develop a curriculum on a school-by-school basis, according to the ethos of the school. When properly applied, that decentralised approach means that this sensitive subject can be framed in a manner that has regard for parental views and concerns.If the curriculum were set centrally, that could and probably would disappear.
	Currently, a good school should always contact parents to let them know when the sex education curriculum is taught, precisely so that they can follow up with their own conversations at home. The current procedures encourage parental involvement, but new clause 20 would serve only to diminish it. I cannot agree that that is the right approach at a time when many people are concerned that we live in a society in which opportunities for parental involvement and influence need strengthening and encouraging, not reducing and diminishing. Throughout this afternoon’s debate, I have repeatedly heard Ministers and others say how important it is to take into account parents’ views with regard to other aspects of education. Surely that should apply in this critical area of a child’s education.
	That does not mean that I am complacent about the current approach—far from it. There is tremendous room for improvement in our relationship and sex education, not least the fact that greater emphasis needs to be placed on the duty to consult parents and communicate clearly with them about what is being taught. Some head teachers believe they must exclusively use whatever resources are recommended by their local authority, but in fact a plethora of other good materials provided by outside agencies can be used, such as the Evaluate: Informing Choice programme. Other head teachers do not accept that the decision should be for the governing body, which has a vital role. I encourage governors actively to take up that role in all schools.
	New clause 20 would be a mistake and I hope the Government firmly reject it. However, I ask Ministers to tell us what plans the Government have to make the current decentralised approach to the critical area of sex education work more effectively, so that parents are more and not less involved, as is intended, and so help our next generation to form and sustain healthy, fulfilling and enduring personal relationships and family lives.

Ann Coffey: I rise to speak to new clause 4, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), who unfortunately cannot be in the
	Chamber because of a prior commitment. He has been a tremendous campaigner, along with the Fostering Network, for allowing young people leaving care to remain with their foster carers until they are at least 21. Currently, children in care leave on or before their 18th birthday, which usually means that children in foster care must leave their foster carer. Every year, hundreds of the most vulnerable young people have to leave home at age 17, but the average age for leaving home in the UK is 24.
	The statistics on outcomes for care leavers are not good. One third of those living on the streets have a background in care, and almost a quarter of the adult prison population have spent time in care. Local authorities have a duty in care planning guidance to ensure that young people leave their foster care when they are ready and not before, but in 2011-12 only 320 young people—5%—remained with their foster carers after they reached age 18. Research shows that the longer a young person can stay with a foster family, the more successful they are later.
	In 2008, the Labour Government set up a “staying put” pilot to assess the benefits of allowing children to stay in care and with foster carers. The pilot reported in 2012 and found that established family relationships and stability make a positive difference to young people in care as they become adults. That is not a surprising outcome—one of the basic values of our culture is the importance of families in providing a nurturing and secure base for young people to make the transition to independence. Not only that, but foster families can become families for life. My aunt and uncle had long-term foster children. To this day, contact continues, as we would expect in other families.
	However, there have been no moves to roll out that scheme. It has been left to councils to decide what provision to fund. The provision is therefore a power a council can choose to exercise rather than a duty to provide a service. In effect, it is a postcode lottery. We have taken the responsibility of parenting those children, having judged that their parents’ care is not good enough. In doing so, we have effectively said that the care system will provide better parenting.
	Since 2010, the Government have stressed the importance of treating looked-after children the same as we would treat our own children. Planning for the transition of care leavers to adulthood should be founded on the principle: is this good enough for my own child?
	Many young people in care have experienced poor parental care, emotional neglect and abuse, and disruptive care placements. An increasing number of young people are coming into care in their early teens, often with complex needs. The care system is failing these children. They are often the ones who run away or go missing, making them vulnerable to harm, including child sexual exploitation. It is recognised that we need to cut the number of out-of-area placements, with local authorities making placements nearer home. The provision of supported foster placements will need to be considered as an alternative to children’s home placements many miles away, so that we can have more vulnerable children in foster care at 18. Although they are adults at 18, they are still vulnerable adults, which is demonstrated by the
	statistics I quoted earlier. What difference have we made as parents if children in our care end up on the streets, in jail or with disabling mental health problems—another generation doomed to mirror the lives of their parents?
	Why would we not let them stay with their foster carers for those important extra three years? Cost must of course be a calculation, but it is minimal. Loughborough university calculated that on average it cost only £17,500 per local authority per year. There will be a far bigger public cost in providing services to a future generation of failing parents, or in helping young people through drug and alcohol addiction. The human cost in misery is incalculable, as is the cost to society in the lost opportunities of the contribution that might have been made if vulnerable young people had been better supported into independence.
	For many young people, their scarring experiences will make their life a tough one. The statistics speak for themselves: young people leaving care need more support, not less. Our amendment would ensure that they receive that continuing support by being allowed to stay in foster care until they are 21 if they want to. I look forward to a positive response from the Minister.

Sarah Wollaston: I am proud to be a patron of Devon Rape Crisis, which, like all of us in this House, is deeply concerned about sexual violence against women and girls. All of us in this House are particularly concerned about the extent to which young people are accessing their information about sex from violent pornography. The influence of violent pornography is to normalise distorted relationships. It teaches some young men that it is normal for women to enjoy violent sex, and to have a total lack of understanding about what constitutes consent. Disturbingly, many young women are being pressured into accepting deeply abnormal and often very violent relationships.
	I completely accept that many parents wish to take on the role of delivering sensitive teaching on relationships in a home environment, but let us be absolutely clear that that is not happening for many young girls. The recent outrages in Oxford and in too many of our towns show that young women are being predated on by violent and often much older men. Young women have had no training in how to say no, or an understanding that it is okay to say no. Too often, there is no one for them to confide in. I put it to the House, therefore, that we need to have sex and relationship education in our curriculum: if it is not there, it will not happen. Too often when we teach sex in schools, it is about plumbing and prevention.

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Lady’s words echo those of Ofsted, which pointed out that the secondary sex and relationship curriculum is not only too focused on plumbing but does not build on the skills that young people need to decide whether they want to enter a relationship—the skills to say no.

Sarah Wollaston: It is about teaching girls to say no, and teaching young men to understand that no is no. That needs to be delivered in an age-appropriate way. It is not about frightening young people or taking it out of the hands of parents. In fact, many parents feel relieved that other people are delivering it.
	There are very competent peer educators out there, ready to deliver these programmes in schools, but I am afraid that if it cannot be counted, it often does not count. It is important, then, to establish the principle that these programmes should be happening; then, of course, we would need to discuss the matter further, because it would need to be delivered in an evidence-based way. I get the message from teachers that they often do not feel they have the skills to deliver these programmes. Let us make sure that this is delivered in an age-appropriate way and by the right professionals, then, but first let us make sure that it happens, because this is about reducing violence against women. We can send out the message that this is important and deliver it well.

Alex Cunningham: I rise to speak to new clause 17, in my name and those of other hon. Members, which would provide for a ban on smoking in private vehicles when children are present. It is a child protection issue.
	I could devote much of my time to the strong influence of the tobacco lobby in this place and knocking down the idea that the new clause is my way of expanding the nanny state, but I will not. Instead, I shall address the simple decision that the new clause invites Members to make: do we act to protect children and ban smoking in cars, or do we leave them to suffer not just the discomfort but the tremendous health problems they will otherwise encounter? In Committee, there was considerable sympathy for the intention, with some reservation about the introduction of an education programme for offenders, but the new clause is much simpler: if a person smokes in a car when a child is present, they would face a £60 fine—no awareness course, no complications, no compromise.
	The principle of such a ban has gained much support from fellow Members on both sides of the House. A majority of people understand that smoking is harmful to our health, particularly the health of children, and most would not expose children to smoke in a vehicle. In a survey of 10,000 adults carried out by Action on Smoking and Health that included more than 2,000 smokers and which asked about the car people travelled in most frequently, only 6% said that people should smoke whenever they liked. Some 71% said that smoking was not allowed full stop and 9% said that smoking was not allowed if there were non-smokers or children travelling. Despite that, however, research from the British Lung Foundation found that more than 51% of eight to 15-year-olds reported exposure to cigarette smoke when confined in a car in the UK.
	Public opinion is firmly on the side of change. A survey by YouGov found that 85% of adults in north-east England, where my constituency is situated, said that they would support laws to ban smoking in cars carrying under-18s. One factor that sets children apart from other groups is that they are less likely to have a say on whether they are exposed to second-hand smoke in a vehicle in which they are travelling. Given that passive smoking is particularly harmful to children, we have a recipe for a public health time bomb. With their quicker respiration rates, smaller airways, less mature immune systems and greater absorption of pollutants, children are at an increased risk from passive smoking in an enclosed space. Passive smoking increases the risk of a
	number of health problems, ranging from wheezing and asthma to respiratory infections and bacterial meningitis, and doubles the risk of sudden infant death.
	These attitudes are backed up by survey data from the British Lung Foundation that shows that many children are uncomfortable with adults smoking around them, but feel unable to influence smoking behaviours. Some 31% of children aged eight to 15 exposed to second-hand smoke in a car reported having asked the smoker to stop. Alarmingly, however, a greater share—34%—had refrained from asking because they were either too frightened or embarrassed. As Members of Parliament, it is our duty to act in the interests of the public we serve and represent, including children and young people, and it is high time that we heeded what our young people are telling us. In the interests of preserving public health, the only way to protect completely against second-hand smoke is to make homes and cars entirely smoke free. A good starting point would be to ban smoking in cars when children are present.
	The Government’s response to this developing crisis, in the form of an informative educational campaign that has just been launched, is certainly welcome, but the message about the dangers of passive smoking must be spread even wider. We must stop this sort of behaviour, so this campaign is of course welcome. Private vehicles are considered private spaces—people argue that it is their private space—but it is the young person’s private space as well, so I hope that the House will support my proposal and that the Government will accept it. Opposing a ban on smoking in private vehicles when children are present assumes that the right to smoke trumps the right of the child to be free from harmful smoke. It does not. I have stressed in the past, and do so again, that this is not just a health issue, but an issue of child protection. I hope the Government will now accept it.

Paul Burstow: I want briefly to draw attention to new clause 5, which addresses the issue of young carers and the fact that the good intentions of the Government in the Care Bill to extend new rights to adult carers have inadvertently created a gap that leaves young carers in a position where they would be less well favoured than adult carers in the future.
	As a result of the new clause, tabled by a cross-party group of Members, the Government can ensure that young carers are treated in a way that is fair and appropriate for them and are not placed in a position where they are undertaking inappropriate and burdensome caring responsibilities. I hope that the Government will be able to give us a good sign of intent to deliver on this agenda. They are doing a great job for adults in the Care Bill and, in carers week, we need to do the same for young carers.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before I call the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), may I remind him that we have a very short period left and that I need to leave a few minutes for the Minister?

Elfyn Llwyd: I would like to speak briefly to amendments Nos 5, 6, 7 and 8, which seek to introduce greater flexibility and understanding
	of the 26-week target for care proceedings. Nobody in this place would deny that that target is very helpful and we hope that, in most cases, we will be able to meet it. But we know—for example from the Norgrove report—that, on average, cases take up to 61 weeks: 48 weeks in family court proceedings. The Justice Committee, of which I am a member, held an inquiry into the operation of family courts. In its evidence to us, Barnardo’s made the point:
	“Two months of delay in making decisions in the best interest of a child equates to 1% of childhood that cannot be restored.”
	For this reason, both the all-party group on child protection and the Justice Committee welcomed the Government’s aim of reducing unnecessary delay in the care system.
	Care must be taken with regard to the target as well. Clause 14 provides the starting point for courts in setting a time for cases; proceedings should come to an end within 26 weeks, as I mentioned. But there is some ambiguity as to when courts should deem an extension appropriate. As the College of Social Work and the Family Rights Group have argued, there is a genuine risk that the proposed 26-week limit could result in too much focus on procedure and not enough on the welfare of the child.
	The vast majority of cases will be concluded within six months, but deciding on permanent options can take longer for some children, not always due to problems with the court process or unnecessary delay. Social workers will attest that situations can change in the course of proceedings; for example, when relatives present themselves as possible carers late in the process. The Family Rights Group has pointed out that, under the new limit, if family members are late in offering themselves as carers there may well not be enough time for the relevant assessments to be carried out.
	Equally, placing a child with grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins or other siblings can reinforce aspects of a child’s identity. In many cases, however, relatives will be reluctant to offer this option if they think that there is still a chance that the child will be able to be returned to his or her parents.
	I anticipate that Government Members will point out that the safeguard for granting extensions to cases is robust enough to allow for complications to be ironed out. Sadly, I have it on good evidence that judges are, in some cases, already imposing a 26-week deadline on proceedings even before the limit has been introduced. It is crucial that time considerations do not supersede the welfare of the child concerned. What is more, some intervention programmes take longer than 26 weeks due to parents undergoing treatment for substance misuse issues and similar problems. The pilot boroughs—Hammersmith and Fulham, Westminster, and Kensington and Chelsea—have estimated that 25 to 30 per cent. of all cases will take longer than the 26-week limit.
	Intensive family programmes, such as the NSPCC’s infant and family team, are another example. The programme was developed in the United States and is now being piloted in the United Kingdom. A four-year evaluation of the programme in the US showed improved outcomes for children and adults in all groups that
	undertook the programme. I will be unable to address that point as fully as I should like in the time allotted, but one of the motivations behind the amendments I am speaking to—by the way, I am hugely indebted to the NSPCC for its assistance in this matter—is that some cases should be exempted from the limit from the outset. Although the Bill as drafted would allow for incremental eight-week extensions, practitioners in the field have warned that they would need to know at the beginning of proceedings how much time they have to work with the family, in order to secure the best possible outcome.
	Equally worryingly, practitioners warn that social workers could be deterred from seeking extensions other than in highly exceptional circumstances, as the “specific justification” test in clause 14(7) may be perceived as a barrier in borderline cases. That is why amendment 5 would allow courts to exempt certain cases from the 26-week limit from the very start of proceedings if evidence relating to a planned intervention or programme requiring a longer period was presented to the court, or if the court considered it necessary to permit additional time to safeguard the child’s welfare.
	Amendments 7 and 8 relate to clause 17, which introduces significant reforms to the way in which courts scrutinise care plans. I do not have time to go into the context; all I would say is that I, too, am disappointed that our time is limited today. These are very important matters. I have skimmed through what I was going to say—I am grateful that I was able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I know that the NSPCC and many other organisations will be bitterly disappointed that we have had to truncate such important debates in this way.

Edward Timpson: This group of amendments covers a wide range of issues relating to the care and protection of children. As I will be unable to address all the points made, I will endeavour to write to all hon. Members in response to their amendments and the questions they posed, particularly the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who has been very convivial and constructive during the passage of this Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has raised a number of important areas of debate, particularly in making some powerful points about returning home from care. I will look at those points extremely carefully and am happy to discuss them with him on another occasion.
	I want to focus on a number of issues about which I have some important points to make. They are: care leavers, young carers, fostering for adoption, child witnesses and sex and relationship education. On carer leavers, new clause 4 considers “staying put” arrangements, where care leavers live with their former foster carer after they have left care. Many hon. Members have expressed their support for new clause 4, and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss how we can extend those arrangements. The legislative framework relating to care leavers is comprehensive and clear. I have written to all directors of children’s services asking them to prioritise “staying put” arrangements. We have also issued practical guidance on tax and benefits issues. We are monitoring “staying put” arrangements and reviewing local progress through Ofsted inspections and feedback
	from care leaver groups. If no progress is being made, I will consider whether legislation is required, but I do not believe we should make that change only two years after changing the statutory framework.
	On young carers, in Committee we heard heart-felt arguments about the need to do more for young carers. I promised to reflect carefully on the arguments for legislative change. Since then I have discussed the matter with the Minister for care services, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), and we have agreed that our joint aim is to ensure that young carers are protected. We firmly believe that taking a “whole family” approach to the assessment of care needs will be the key to achieving just that. I have now given the matter careful thought and, with the changes being introduced by the Care Bill for adult carers, I am persuaded that the time is right to see what we can do to remove any barriers that may be preventing these vulnerable young people and their families from receiving the life-changing support they need.
	I have asked officials to look at how the legislation for young carers might be changed so that rights and responsibilities are clearer to young carers and practitioners alike. We will also look at how we can ensure that children’s legislation works with adults’ legislation to support the linking of assessments, as set out in the Care Bill, to enable “whole family” approaches. We will ensure that interested parties, including hon. Members, are consulted on that work.
	There is a strong consensus about the policy intention behind fostering for adoption: that children should be placed as early as possible in a stable placement. Amendment 33 would mean that clause 1 would bite too early for concurrent planning. I listened to the concerns raised in Committee about the impact on kinship carers, but there is no intention that kinship carers should be overlooked as a consequence of this clause. I am pleased to reassure hon. Members that I am giving consideration to amending the clause to be clearer that local authorities must first consider placing a child with relatives and friends before they consider a “fostering for adoption” placement. This is an issue that I expect to be returned to in the other place, and I know that Members will welcome that reassurance. I know that hon. Members will also be pleased by today’s announcement from the Secretary of State for Justice on child witnesses. That represents an important move forward.
	On personal, social and health education, we all recognise that this is an important issue, but we do not have unanimity on what constitutes the best approach. The expectation that all schools should teach PSHE is outlined in the introduction to the framework of the proposed new national curriculum. It is not a statutory requirement, however, as we strongly believe that teachers need the flexibility to use their professional judgment to decide when and how best to provide PSHE in their local circumstances. The Government do not believe that the right of parents to withdraw their children from sex and relationship education should be diminished in the way proposed. We see no need to amend the existing legislation, which provides a clear and workable model for schools and parents. Moreover, the new provision would place a disproportionate burden on teachers, who would have to make and defend decisions on what constitutes “sufficient maturity”—
	Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 25 February).
	The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.
	Question negatived.
	The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 6
	 — 
	Staff to child ratios: Ofsted-registered childminder settings

‘(1) This section applies to Ofsted-registered childminder settings.
	(2) The ratio of staff to children under the age of eight must be no less than one to six, where—
	(a) a maximum of three children may be young children;
	(b) a maximum of one child is under the age of one.
	(3) Any care provided by childminders for older children must not adversely affect the care of children receiving early years provision.
	(4) If a childminder can demonstrate to parents, carers and inspectors, that the individual needs of all the children are being met, then in addition to the ratio set out in subsection (2), they may also care for—
	(a) babies who are siblings of the children referred to in subsection (2), or
	(b) their own baby.
	(5) If children aged between four and five years only attend the childminding setting outside of normal school hours or the normal school term time, they may be cared for at the same time as three other young children, provided that at no time the ratio of staff to children under the age of eight exceeds one to six.
	(6) If a childminder employs an assistant or works with another childminder, each childminder or assistant may care for the number of children permitted by the ratios specified in subsections (2), (4), and (5).
	(7) Children may only be left in the sole care of a childminder’s assistant for two hours in a single day.
	(8) Childminders must obtain the permission of a child’s parents or carers before that child can be left in the sole care of a childminder’s assistant.
	(9) The ratios in subsections (2), (4) and (5) apply to childminders providing overnight care, provided that the children are continuously monitored, which may be through the use of electronic equipment.
	(10) For the purposes of this section a child is—
	(a) a “young child” up until 1 September following his or her fifth birthday.
	(b) an “older child” after the 1 September following his or her fifth birthday.’.—(Mrs Hodgson.)
	Brought up.
	Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 222, Noes 303.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 20
	 — 
	Personal, social and health education in maintained schools

‘(1) In section 84(3) of the Education Act 2002 (curriculum foundation subjects for the first, second and third key stages), after paragraph (g) there is inserted—
	“(ga) personal, social and health education”.
	(2) In section 85(4) of the Education Act 2002 (curriculum foundation subjects for the fourth key stage), at the end there is inserted “, and
	(d) personal, social and health education.”
	(3) In section 74(1) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, which (when brought into force) will substitute a new section 85 in the Education Act 2002, in subsection (4) of that substituted section (foundation subjects for the fourth key stage), at the end there is inserted “, and
	(d) personal, social and health education.”
	(4) Before section 86 of the Education Act 2002 there is inserted—
	“85B Personal, social and health education
	(1) For the purposes of this Part, personal, social and health education (“PSHE”) shall include sex and relationship education, including information about same-sex relationships, sexual violence, domestic violence and sexual consent.
	(2) The National Curriculum for England is not required to specify attainment targets or assessment arrangements for PSHE (and section 84(1) has effect accordingly).
	(3) The Secretary of State for Education shall set out guidance to schools and colleges to ensure that a coherent approach to personal, social, health and economic education is developed, including between primary and secondary schools.
	(4) It is the duty of the governing body and head teacher of any school in which PSHE is provided in pursuance of this Part to secure that guidance issued under subsection (3) is followed and that—
	(a) information presented in the course of providing PSHE should be accurate and balanced;
	(b) PSHE is taught in a way that is appropriate to the ages of the pupils concerned and to their religious and cultural backgrounds, and reflects a reasonable range of religious, cultural and other perspectives;
	(c) PSHE is taught in a way that endeavours to promote equality, celebrate diversity, and emphasise the importance of both rights and responsibilities.
	(5) In the exercise of their functions under this Part so far as relating to PSHE, a local authority, governing body or head teacher shall have regard to any guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of State.”.
	(5) Section 403 of the Education Act 1996 (sex education: manner of provision) is amended as set out in subsections (6) to (9).
	(6) In subsection (1), for the words from the beginning to “at a maintained school” there is substituted “The governing body or other proprietor of any school to which this section applies, and its head teacher, must take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that sex and relationships education is given to registered pupils at the school and that”.
	(7) After that subsection there is inserted—
	“(1ZA) The schools to which this section applies are—
	(a) maintained schools;
	(b) city technology colleges;
	(c) city colleges for the technology of the arts;
	(d) Academies.
	A reference in this section or section 404 to the governing body of a school, in relation to a school within paragraph (b), (c) or (d), shall be read as a reference to the proprietor of the school.”.
	(8) In subsection (1A)—
	(a) for “when sex education is given to registered pupils at maintained schools” there is substituted “when sex and relationships education is given to registered pupils at schools to which this section applies”;
	(b) in paragraph (a), after “, and” there is inserted “learn the nature of civil partnership and the importance of strong and stable relationships.”;
	(c) paragraph (b) is omitted.
	(9) In subsection (1C), for “sex education” there is substituted “sex and relationships education”,
	(10) In section 579 of the Education Act 1996 (general interpretation), in the definition of “sex education” in subsection (1)—
	(a) for “sex education” there is substituted “sex and relationships education”;
	(b) at the end there is inserted “but does not include education about human reproduction provided as part of any science teaching;”.
	(11) For section 405 of the Education Act 1996 there is substituted—
	“405 Exemption from sex and relationships education
	(1) If a pupil of sufficient maturity in attendance at a school to which section 403 applies requests to be wholly or partly excused from receiving sex and relationships education at the school, the pupil shall be so excused accordingly until the request is withdrawn.
	(2) The Secretary of State must in regulations define “sufficient maturity”.
	(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (2) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(4) The Secretary of State must lay draft regulations before Parliament before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”.’.—(Lisa Nandy.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided:
	Ayes 219, Noes 303.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 6
	 — 
	The Adoption and Children Act Register

Amendment made: 9, page5,line9,at end insert—
	‘( ) In section 129 (disclosure of information), in subsection (2)(a) after “suitable for adoption” insert “or for whom a local authority in England is considering adoption”.’.—(Mr Timpson.)

Clause 8
	 — 
	Contact: post-adoption

Amendment made: 16, page8,line42,at end add—
	‘(12) In Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (civil legal services)—
	(a) in paragraph 12(9) (victims of domestic violence and family matters), in the definition of “family enactment” after paragraph (o) insert—
	(a) section 51A of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (post-adoption contact orders).”, and
	(b) in paragraph 13(1) (protection of children and family matters) after paragraph (f) insert—
	(g) orders under section 51A of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (post-adoption contact).”’.—(Mr Timpson.)

Clause 41
	 — 
	Independent special schools and special post-16 institutions: approval

Amendment made: 17, page32,line28,after ‘needs,’ insert—
	‘(ba) an independent school—
	(i) which has been entered on the register of independent schools in Wales (kept under section 158 of the Education Act 2002), and
	(ii) which is specially organised to make special educational provision for pupils with special educational needs,’.—(Mr Timpson.)

Clause 48
	 — 
	Personal budgets

Amendments made: 18, page36,line19,at beginning insert
	‘Special educational’.
	Amendment 19, page36,line20,leave out ‘provision’ and insert ‘having been’.
	Amendment 20, page36,line21,at end insert—
	‘(6) Subsection (7) applies if—
	(a) an EHC plan is maintained for a child or young person, and
	(b) health care provision specified in the plan is acquired for him or her by means of a payment made by a commissioning body under section 12A(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006 (direct payments for health care).
	(7) The health care provision is to be treated as having been arranged by the commissioning body in pursuance of its duty under section 42(3) of this Act, subject to any prescribed conditions or exceptions.
	(8) “Commissioning body”, in relation to any specified health care provision, means a body that is under a duty to arrange health care provision of that kind in respect of the child or young person.’.—(Mr Timpson.)

Clause 49
	 — 
	Continuation of services under section 17 of the Children Act 1989

Amendment made: 21, page36,line28,after ‘authority’, insert
	‘in England’.—(Mr Timpson.)

Clause 87
	 — 
	Shared parental leave

Amendment made: 26, page66,leave out line 34 and insert—
	‘(b) a person who is an employer or former employer of such a person.
	‘(2A) In subsection (2)(b) “employer”, in relation to a person falling within subsection (2)(a) who is an employed earner, includes a person who is a secondary contributor as regards that employed earner.
	(2B) The conditions as to employment or self-employment that may be specified in provision under section 75E(2) or (5) or 75G(2) or (5) include conditions as to being in employed or self-employed earner’s employment.
	(2C) In subsections (2A) and (2B)—
	“employed earner” and “self-employed earner” have the meaning given by section 2 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, subject for these purposes to the effect of regulations made under section 2(2)(b) of that Act (persons who are to be treated as employed or self-employed earners);
	“employment”, in the case of employment as an employed or self-employed earner, has the meaning given by section 122 of that Act;
	“secondary contributor”, as regards an employed earner, means a person who—
	(a) is indicated by section 7(1) of that Act, as that subsection has effect subject to section 7(2) of that Act, as being a secondary contributor as regards the earner, or(b) is indicated by regulations under section 7(2) of that Act as being a person to be treated as a secondary contributor as regards the earner.’.—
	(Mr Timpson.)

Clause 107
	 — 
	Transitional, transitory or saving provision

Amendment made: 28, page113,line39,at end insert—
	‘(2) Subsections (3) to (5) apply if section 85(1) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (“the 2012 Act”) comes into force on or before the day on which this Act is passed.
	(3) Section 85 of the 2012 Act (removal of £5,000 limit on certain fines on conviction by magistrates’ court) applies in relation to the following offences as if the offences were relevant offences (as defined in section 85(3) of that Act)—
	(a) the offence contained in the new section 51C(4) to be inserted into the Childcare Act 2006 by paragraph 13 of Schedule 4 to this Act;
	(b) the offence contained in the new section 51F(1) to be inserted into that Act by paragraph 13 of that Schedule;
	(c) the offence contained in the new section 61D(4) to be inserted into that Act by paragraph 26 of that Schedule;
	(d) the offence contained in the new section 61G(1) to be inserted into that Act by paragraph 26 of that Schedule;
	(e) the offence contained in the new section 69C(6) to be inserted into that Act by paragraph 36 of that Schedule;
	(f) the offence contained in the new section 76B(3) to be inserted into that Act by paragraph 46 of that Schedule.
	(4) Section 85 of the 2012 Act (removal of £5,000 limit on certain fines on conviction by magistrates’ court) applies in relation to the power in the new section 69A(1)(b) to be inserted into the Childcare Act 2006 by paragraph 35 of Schedule 4 to this Act as if the power were a relevant power (as defined in section 85(3) of the 2012 Act).
	(5) Regulations described in section 85(11) of the 2012 Act may amend, repeal or otherwise modify a provision of this Act or the Childcare Act 2006.’.—(Mr Timpson.)

Schedule 1
	 — 
	The Adoption and Children Act Register

Amendments made: 10,page116, leave out lines 5 to 12 and insert—
	“(2A) Regulations may make provision permitting the disclosure of prescribed information entered in the register, or compiled from information entered in the register—
	(a) to an adoption agency or to a Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish adoption agency for any prescribed purpose, or
	(b) for the purpose of enabling the information to be entered in a register which is maintained in respect of Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland and which contains information about children who are suitable for adoption or prospective adopters who are suitable to adopt a child.”’.
	Amendment 11, page 116, line 13, after ‘(4)’ insert—
	‘—
	(a) .’
	Amendment 12, page116,line13, at end insert—
	‘, and
	(b) after “(2)” insert “or (2A)”.’.
	Amendment 13,page116,line17, at end insert—
	( ) in paragraph (a) after “(2)” insert “or (2A)”,’.
	Amendment 14,page116,line21, leave out ‘(2A)(a)’ and insert— ‘(2A)’.
	Amendment 15,page116,line22, leave out ‘after “subsection” insert—
	“(2A)(b) or”’ and insert ‘for “to whom information is disclosed under subsection (3)” substitute “in respect of information disclosed under subsection (2A) or (3)”’.—(Mr Timpson.)

Schedule 3
	 — 
	Special educational needs: consequential amendments

Amendments made: 22,page149,line25, leave out ‘young person’ and insert—
	‘person over compulsory school age but under 25’.
	Amendment 23,page151,line7, at end insert—
	‘Local Government Act 1974 (c.7)
	61A In Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1974 (matters not subject to investigation by Local Commissioners), in paragraph 5(2)(b) for “by section 312” substitute “by section 579(1)”.
	Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 (c.33)
	61B (1) In the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, section 5 (disabled persons leaving special education) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)—
	(a) in paragraph (a) after “needs)” insert “, or have maintained an EHC plan under section 37 of the Children and Families Act 2013,”, and
	(b) in paragraph (b) after “statement” (in both places) insert “or plan”.
	(3) In subsection (2)—
	(a) in paragraph (a) after “statement” insert “, or secure the preparation of an EHC plan,”,
	(b) in paragraph (b) after “statement” insert “or plan”, and
	(c) after “making the statement” insert “, securing the preparation of the plan”.
	(4) After subsection (8) insert—
	“(8A) Regulations under section (Transfer of EHC plans) of the Children and Families Act 2013 (transfer of EHC plans) may make such provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with subsections (1) to (7) of this section.”
	(5) In subsection (9), in paragraph (a) of the definition of “the responsible authority”, after “1996” insert “or (as the case may be) Part 3 of the Children and Families Act 2013”.
	Value Added Tax Act 1994 (c.23)
	61C (1) In Schedule 9 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994, in Part 2 (groups of goods and services the supply of which is exempt from VAT), group 6 (education) is amended as follows.
	(2) In item 5B—
	(a) after paragraph (b) insert—
	(ba) aged 19 or over and for whom an EHC plan is maintained,”, and
	(b) in paragraph (d), after “paragraph” insert “(ba) or”.
	(3) in note (5B), after “item (5B),” insert ““EHC plan” and” and for “has the same meaning” substitute “have the same meanings”.
	School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c.31)
	61D The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 is amended as follows.
	61E (1) Section 98 (admission for nursery education or to nursery or special school: children with statements of special educational needs) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (7) after “for whom” insert “EHC plans are maintained under section 37 of the Children and Families Act 2013 or”
	(3) In the title after “special education needs” insert “or EHC plans”.
	61F (1) Section 123 (nursery education: children with special educational needs) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), for the words from “(except” to the end substitute “to have regard to the provisions of the code of practice issued under section 66 of the Children and Families Act 2013 (in the case of education in England) or section 313(2) of the Education Act 1996 (in the case of education in Wales).”
	(3) After subsection (1) insert—
	“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply in so far as the person in question is already under a duty to have regard to the provisions of the code of practice in question.”
	(4) In subsection (2)—
	(a) for “That code of practice” substitute “The code of practice in question”, and
	(b) after “functions under” insert “Part 3 of the Children and Families Act 2013 or (as the case may be)”.
	(5) In subsection (3)—
	(a) for “that code of practice” substitute “the code of practice in question”, and
	(b) after “functions under” insert “Part 3 of the Children and Families Act 2013 or (as the case may be)”.
	(6) In subsection (3A)(b) after “no” insert “EHC plan or”.
	61G In Part A1 of Schedule 22 (disposals of land in case of foundation, voluntary and foundation special schools in England), in paragraph A23(9), in paragraph (d) of the definition of “children’s services”—
	(a) after “learning difficulty” insert “or disability”, and
	(b) omit “66,”.
	Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c.21)
	61H The Learning and Skills Act 2000 is amended as follows.61I In section 35 (conditions imposed by Welsh Ministers on financial resources provided by them), in subsection (3)(f) omit “139A or”.61J In section 41 (discharge by the Welsh Ministers of certain functions in relation to persons with learning difficulties), in subsection (1)(b) omit “139A or”.’.
	Amendment 24,page151,line8, leave out
	‘In the Learning and Skills Act 2000’.
	Amendment 25,page151,line10, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 and insert—
	63 In consequence of the repeals made by paragraphs 61I, 61J and 62—
	(a) omit paragraph 76 of Schedule 1 to the Education and Skills Act 2008;
	(b) section 80 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 is repealed.
	Education Act 2002 (c. 32)
	64 The Education Act 2002 is amended as follows.65 In section 92 (pupils with statements of special educational needs: application of National Curriculum for England)—
	(a) for the words from “a statement” to “special educational needs” substitute “an EHC plan maintained for the pupil”,
	(b) for “the statement” substitute “the plan”, and
	(c) in the heading for “statements of special educational needs” substitute “EHC plans”.
	66 (1) Section 94 (information concerning directions under section 93) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (3), for the words from “by virtue of” to the end substitute “and the responsible authority ought to be required to secure an EHC needs assessment for the pupil under section 36 of the Children and Families Act 2013 (or, if an EHC plan is maintained for the pupil, a re-assessment under section 44 of that Act).”
	(3) In subsection (5), for the words from “consider” to the end substitute “make a determination in respect of the pupil under section 36(3) of the Children and Families Act 2013 (or, if an EHC plan is maintained for the pupil, under that section as it applies to re-assessments by virtue of regulations under section 44 (7)).”
	(4) In subsection (6), for “Part 4 of the Education Act 1996” substitute “Part 3 of the Children and Families Act 2013 (see section 23 of that Act)”.
	Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41)
	67 (1) Section 36 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (education of children who are residents of accommodation centres) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (3)(b), after “named in” insert “an EHC plan maintained for the child under section 37 of the Children and Families Act 2013 or”.
	(3) In subsection (5), omit the “and” after paragraph (d) and after paragraph (e) insert—
	“(f) sections33 and34 of the Children and Families Act 2013 (mainstream education for children with special educational needs), and
	(g) sections38 and39 of that Act (EHC plan: request of parent for named school etc).”
	(4) After subsection (5) insert—
	“(5A) The powers of the First-tier Tribunal on determining an appeal under section 50(2)(c) of the Children and Families Act 2013 (appeals against certain aspects of content of EHC plan) are subject to subsection (2) above.”
	(5) In subsection (6), omit “the First-tier Tribunal or”.
	(6) In subsection (7)—
	(a) after “function under this Act” insert “, Part 3 of the Children and Families Act 2013”, and
	(b) in paragraph (a), after “special educational provision” insert “called for by his special educational needs or”.
	(7) In subsection (9), after paragraph (a) insert—
	“(aa) section36 of the Children and Families Act 2013 (assessment of education, health and care needs: England) shall have effect as if an accommodation centre were a school,”.
	Children Act 2004 (c. 31)
	68 In section 10(9) of the Children Act 2004 (co-operation arrangements in respect of children may include arrangements in respect of certain young people), in paragraph (c)—
	(a) after “but under the age of 25” insert “—
	(i) for whom an EHC plan is maintained, or
	(ii) ”, and
	(b) after “learning difficulty” insert “or disability”.
	Education and Inspections Act 2006 (c. 40)
	69 In section 16 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (consultation before publishing proposals for discontinuance of maintained schools), in subsection (1)(c), after “maintain” insert “an EHC plan or”.
	Education and Skills Act 2008 (c. 25)
	70 The Education and Skills Act 2008 is amended as follows.71 In section 4 (meaning of appropriate full-time education or training)—
	(a) in subsection (1)(b), for “learning difficulty” substitute “special educational needs”, and
	(b) omit subsection (3).
	72 In section 17 (sharing and use of information held for purposes of support services or functions under Part 1), in subsection (8)(b)—
	(a) for “a learning difficulty” substitute “special educational needs”, and
	(b) omit the words from “and subsections (6) and (7)” to the end.
	73 In section 47 (attendance notice: description of education or training)—
	(a) in subsection (5)(b)(ii), for “learning difficulty” substitute “special educational needs”, and
	(b) omit subsection (6).
	74 In section 78(1) (Part 2: supplementary), in the definition of “relevant young adult”—
	(a) for “a learning difficulty” substitute “special educational needs (within the meaning given by section 579(1) of the Education Act 1996)”, and
	(b) omit the words from “and subsections (6) and (7)” to the end.
	75 In section 132 (providers of independent education or training for 16 to 18 year olds)—
	(a) in subsection (4)(a), for the words from “a statement” to “needs)” substitute “an EHC plan is maintained”,
	(b) in subsection (4)(b), for “a statement was so” substitute “an EHC plan was”,
	(c) in subsection (4)(b)(i), after “school” insert “or (if later) the person ceased to be a student at his or her last post-16 institution”,
	(d) in subsection (4)(b)(ii), after “institution” insert “in England mentioned in subsection (2)”, and
	(e) in subsection (6), after the definition of “an academic year” insert—
	““post-16 institution” has the meaning given by section72(2) of the Children and Families Act 2013;”.
	Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (c. 22)
	76 The Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 is amended as follows.77 In section 83 (power to secure provision of apprenticeship training)—
	(a) in subsection (1)(b), for “are subject to learning difficulty assessment” substitute “for whom an EHC plan is maintained”,
	(b) in subsection (2)(b), for “learning difficulties” substitute “special educational needs”, and
	(c) omit subsection (4).
	78 In section 86 (education and training for persons aged 19 or over etc), in subsection (1)(a), for “who are subject to learning difficulty assessment” substitute “for whom an EHC plan is maintained”.79 In section 87 (learning aims for persons aged 19 or over: provision of facilities), in subsection (3)(a), for “who are subject to learning difficulty assessment” substitute “for whom an EHC plan is maintained”.80 In section 101 (financial resources: conditions), in subsection (5)(f)—
	(a) after “specified in” insert “an EHC plan or”, and
	(b) omit “139A or”.
	81 In section 115 (persons with learning difficulties)—
	(a) in subsection (1), for “learning difficulties” substitute “special educational needs”,
	(b) in subsection (2)(a), for “who are subject to learning difficulty assessment” substitute “for whom an EHC plan is maintained”,
	(c) omit subsections (3) and (4), and
	(d) in the title, for “learning difficulties” substitute “special educational needs”.
	82 In section 129 (general duties of Ofqual)—
	(a) in subsection (2)(b) and (c), for “learning difficulties” substitute “special educational needs”, and
	(b) omit subsections (9) and (10).
	Academies Act 2010 (c. 32)
	83 In section 1 of the Academies Act 2010 (Academy arrangements), omit subsections (7) and (8).
	Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (c. 10)
	84 In paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (civil legal services: special educational needs)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (1)(a), after “1996” insert “or Part 3 of the Children and Families Act 2013”, and
	(b) in sub-paragraph (1)(b), for “sections 139A and” substitute “section”.’.—(Mr Timpson.)

Schedule 7
	 — 
	Statutory rights to leave and pay: further amendments

Amendment made: 27,page194,line2, at end insert—
	40A In section 230 (meaning of “employee”, etc), after subsection (6) there is inserted—
	(7) This section has effect subject to section 75K(2A) and (2C).” ’.—(Mr Timpson.)
	Third Reading
	Queen’s consent signified.

Edward Timpson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	Let me begin by thanking all Members who served on the Public Bill Committee. The debate was constructive and—dare I say it?—mature, exceedingly thorough and all the more encouraging for being the first such Committee for many of the newly elected Members on both sides of the House. We had 19 sittings, 397 amendments were tabled, and every issue was thoughtfully scrutinised. I am sure that we all agree with the hon. Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and for Wigan (Lisa Nandy)—I extend to them my personal thanks for their responsible and fair-minded contributions —who told us that it was
	“a hard-working, good-natured and somewhat consensual Committee. At times, we have agreed more than we have disagreed, which is for the good… the legislation we are shaping is extremely important for millions of our most vulnerable children now and in future.”––[Official Report, Children and Families Public Bill Committee, 25 April 2013; c. 815.]
	I would also like to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who has led jointly on the Bill with great aplomb in this House and before the four Select Committees that considered much of the Bill during pre-legislative scrutiny, even when the odd stray nut sought to scupper her endeavours.
	The debates in Committee and today have reflected the importance of the issues the Bill seeks to address. It seeks to improve the lives of some of our most vulnerable children. Improving the life chances of every child, whatever their background, by putting their needs first in all that we do is at the heart of the Government’s agenda.

Hugh Bayley: Will the Minister give way?

Edward Timpson: I will take a brief intervention, but I am mindful of the time and know that other Back Benchers wish to speak.

Hugh Bayley: I, too, am mindful of the time, so I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—I understand why he could not do so during his speech on Report. I rise on behalf of a constituent who fosters three children. As a consequence of the Government’s decision to exempt only one bedroom from the bedroom tax for foster carers, she is required to pay £14 a week to carry on fostering. If she moved into smaller accommodation, she could foster only one of those three children, and there would be a cost of about £3,000 a week if the
	children went into care. Will he, together with the Minister responsible for welfare reform, look at the issue and reflect on whether they can give a further concession?

Edward Timpson: Of course I am happy to look at the specific case the hon. Gentleman raises in the context of the changes that have been made. As he and Opposition Front Benchers will know, I have worked hard, both before coming into government and since, to try to ensure that foster carers are given the best possible support in their endeavours, because we want to encourage more people to foster, and we know from the research we have done that many more would like to take up that opportunity. The Welfare Minister, Lord Freud, and I have written jointly to all local authorities to explain the importance of this, with regard to both the single room subsidy and making the discretionary housing fund available to foster carers where appropriate. We have committed to an independent review of that progress, and I will be keeping a keen and close eye on how that develops. I know that the Fostering Network, which has done some excellent work on the issue, will also take a lead in ensuring that we have a clear understanding of the impact of the changes.
	The Bill will overhaul services for vulnerable children and support strong families. It will raise aspirations and place children and young people at the heart of decision making and support in the SEN system. It will reduce delays in the adoption system. It is part of a wider set of reforms to improve children’s services so that everyone involved in a vulnerable child’s life—teachers, social workers, health professionals and the police—has a proper sense of responsibility for the child’s prospects, not just focusing on their precise duties and whether they have followed the correct processes and ticked all the boxes, but looking at the child’s overall welfare. That means refocusing the system on the child’s needs in a child’s time frame, foremost among which must be the need to keep the child safe from harm.
	We often hear that the care system fails children, that it damages and betrays them. Too often it does, but, as I know from my family and the fostering and adopting we have undertaken, it can also transform lives. As the recent research report “Safeguarding Children Across Services” pointed out, when compared with those who are reunited with their birth families, the majority of maltreated children do better in care or accommodation. Looked-after children can and do achieve in care in a stable placement. We know, for example, that there is a marked correlation between the length of time in care and the stability of placements and achieving good educational outcomes at GCSE, yet we must remain resolute in ensuring that the child’s best interests, not administrative or personnel considerations, are always at the heart of the system.
	Delays in care and adoption services mean that it currently takes, on average, 21 months to place a child. Those delays damage a child’s development and reduce their chances of finding the love and stability they need with a new family. The Bill will help to sweep away such barriers through measures designed to speed up the adoption process, help recruit more potential adopters and improve the support they can receive. It will enable children to be placed earlier with their potential adopters.
	Building on the family justice review, we are tackling unacceptable delays in the courts, ensuring that children’s best interests remain at the heart of decision making, and encouraging parents to resolve disputes outside the court where possible. By introducing a 26-week time limit for care and supervision proceedings, the Bill will ensure that courts focus on the essentials and that the most vulnerable children are not damaged further by unnecessary drift and delay. This is already having an impact in our courts. As the president of the family division recently wrote to everyone involved in the family courts system:
	“We must get away from existing practice. All too often, and partly as a result of previous initiatives, local authorities are filing enormously voluminous materials, which—and this is not their fault—are not merely far too long; too often they are narrative and historical, rather than analytical...I want to send out a clear message: local authority materials can be much shorter...and...should be more focused on analysis.”
	We also want to improve support for children remaining in local authority care, and so the Bill will make the virtual school head a statutory role in local authorities. This sends out the strongest possible signal about the priority we attach to the educational attainment of looked after children. Changes to the Office of the Children’s Commissioner will help the commissioner act as a strong advocate for children, promoting and protecting their rights. For children and young people with special educational needs, the Bill will introduce a single system from birth to age 25; new education, health and care plans which ensure that health, education and social care are planned around the needs of the child or young person; new rights and protections for 16 to 25-year-olds in further education and training; and a clear focus on outcomes, including independent living and paid employment.
	The most frequent complaint I have heard from parents about SEN is that the current system is opaque and inflexible, leaving children and families to battle for access to services in a fog of bureaucracy. By requiring local authorities to publish a clear and transparent local offer, families will, in future, know what support is available in their area and how to access it.
	Crucially, the duty on clinical commissioning groups to secure provision of health services as part of an EHC plan strengthens the Bill’s creation of a more integrated approach to care and support, and it has been widely and warmly welcomed by the SEN charitable sector. I want to express my gratitude to the Secretary of State for Health and his ministerial team for their willingness to help to push the boundaries towards better health integration in SEN service provision.
	We are committed to reforming child care substantially to increase the availability of high-quality, affordable provision. The enabling measures in the Bill will offer greater choice and flexibility for providers and parents. We are introducing shared parental leave, giving working parents greater choice over who looks after their child in the first year and offering fathers the opportunity to be more involved in caring for their children. Together with the extension of the right to request flexible working to all employees, these measures will make the labour market more flexible, equitable and family friendly.
	We all share an ambition for this Bill to make a tangible, lasting difference to the lives of children and families. Many in this House and beyond have made
	important points about how we ensure that the Bill really achieves that. I am grateful for that valuable expertise and measured consideration. I particularly thank the Education Committee, the Justice Committee, the Adoption Legislation Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights for their valuable scrutiny of the Bill. I am grateful to the Office of the Children’s Commissioner for its children’s rights impact assessment and to the children’s rights director for his superb version of the Bill for children, which is so jargon-free that it should make all of us in Westminster and Whitehall blush. I thank the many organisations that gave and submitted evidence in Committee and worked with me, my officials and hon. Members across the House to make sure that the many important issues that the Bill touches on are properly understood in terms of its content and implementation.
	Throughout the development and passage of the Bill, we have listened and made changes so that the Bill we now pass to the other place is an improved one. This is a detailed Bill and it is vital that we take time to consider the points made and get the legislation and implementation right. Therefore, as I indicated earlier, we will consider some key issues over the summer and hope that progress can be made in the other place. In particular, we will look at these issues: clarifying whether, before local authorities can consider a fostering for adoption placement, they must consider placing the child with a relative or friend; introducing new safeguards through regulations to ensure that a local authority notifies the child’s birth parents when considering a fostering for adoption placement; seeing what more we can do to improve outcomes for young carers, ensuring that our approach complements the changes being introduced through the Care Bill; and identifying further improvements to the support that young offenders with SEN receive in custody.
	As the Bill moves on to the other place, I am confident that it will be viewed as a Bill that all of us in this House can look back on, in whole or in part, and feel sure that we did right by giving our most vulnerable children, who all too often have the weakest voice, the chance to be heard and respected and the prospect of a better future. I commend the Bill to the House.

Sharon Hodgson: I begin by thanking my Front-Bench colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for her excellent scrutiny of those sections of the Bill that she has been responsible for shadowing, including sections that do not usually come under her policy remit. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Corby (Andy Sawford) and for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) for supporting us during this process, and our colleagues on the Bill Committee, my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), for North West Durham (Pat Glass), for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) and for Croydon North (Mr Reed).
	Given how constructive and good-natured the Committee was—for the most part, at least—I also thank its Government members, many of whom made valuable contributions. I thank the Minister for children and families, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), and the Minister for employment relations, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), for their helpful and thorough responses to our many questions.
	I also thank the staff in all our offices, who have ensured that we have been fully briefed and prepared for our many hours of debate on the Bill, and the representatives of all the sector bodies and lobby groups for their help.
	Finally, I thank the Clerks and the Library staff for their expertise, which has supported us in our understanding and scrutiny of the Bill, and for ensuring the smooth running of the whole process.
	On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan rightly laid down Labour’s key test for this Bill’s reforms: will they result in better outcomes for the children they seek to help? The many areas where we agree with the Government that they will help, and the few areas where we think that they will not help enough or at all, have all been covered extensively since February’s Second Reading debate.
	On special educational needs, as I said earlier, while we support the vast majority of what the Government are doing, concerns remain about the accountability of local services to families, the potential to exacerbate the postcode lottery and how some of the more ambitious reforms, such as personal budgets, will actually work in practice. Of course, the main concern is that the benefits that these reforms should bring are not denied to the children and young people with special educational needs who find themselves in the youth justice system.
	On parts 1 and 2, while we do not disagree with much of what the Government are trying to do, we remain deeply concerned about what the Bill will mean in practice for children in care in the family courts. We urge Ministers to consider what the reforms will mean in practice for social workers who are overburdened and families who have lost access to legal aid.
	We believe that the Government are mistaken in not ensuring that ethnicity is still considered in adoption placements—not as an overriding consideration, but as one of the many things that matter to children—or that courts consider sibling arrangements when scrutinising children’s care plans. Although we agree that we should remove needless delay from the courts, we are concerned that many of the Bill’s measures place speed above getting it right for children.
	It is a great shame that the Government refused to structure this debate in a way that would have given us time to debate all the issues, and that we did not have two days to consider such a large and wide-ranging Bill that contains important measures relating to vulnerable children. Nor have we had time to do justice to our new clauses or that tabled by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), which seek to improve the lives of young carers.

Barbara Keeley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important thing as the Bill progresses is to make sure—it is important that the Minister agrees with us on this—that the adult who is assessed receives sufficient support so that the young person does not experience negative outcomes? The support should not impact on their education or quality of life. That is the key point behind new clause 5 and it is a pity that we were not able to debate it today.

Sharon Hodgson: I agree with my hon. Friend and will probably repeat some of the points that she has just made. I commend her for her tireless and excellent campaigning on behalf of young carers since she promoted her private Member’s Bill. I know that she will continue that work when this Bill goes to the other place.
	As I pointed out to the Minister for children and families in Committee, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who has responsibility for care, promised my hon. Friend and those of us who were present for the Second Reading of her private Member’s Bill last September that young carers would be provided for in the Children and Families Bill, yet we are still waiting to see what those provisions will be. The Minister gave some warm assurances on that issue during his closing remarks, so we look forward to seeing it addressed in the Bill.

Edward Timpson: Just to clarify, if the hon. Lady looks back at Hansard she will see that just before the end of Report I gave some strong indications of the direction of travel I am persuaded to take with regard to young carers.

Sharon Hodgson: That is very good; I will do that.
	At the very least, we need to ensure that agencies that come into contact with families know how to spot a child who might be providing care and how to refer that child and their family to the support that exists for the majority of young carers. That needs to happen in order to address the much poorer outcomes that such children have because of their responsibilities.
	As the Children’s Society discovered recently in its “Hidden from View” report, about one in 20 young carers misses school because of caring responsibilities. Young carers attain the equivalent of nine grades lower than their peers at GCSE level and are consequently more likely than other young people to be classed as not in education, employment or training after school. There are also health implications. Young carers are one and a half times more likely to have a special educational need, a long-standing illness or a disability than their peers. Those who are dedicated to looking after someone else often do not take good enough care of themselves. That is particularly true of young carers.
	There are 166,363 young carers in England according to the latest census data, which were released on 16 May this year. That is 166,363 young people who stand a much poorer chance of reaching their educational potential and a much greater chance of suffering poor health or being a NEET. It does not need to be that way. I know that the Minister has outlined measures, but he could make the changes to the Bill that we have suggested in the other place or bring forward his own changes to ensure that those young carers are given the support that they need.
	The Minister will not be surprised that I am also keen for progress to be made on ensuring that children’s centres are better able to identify and help every family in their area who needs it by adopting the measures tabled by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). She has not made a speech today and I hope that she has a chance to do so in a moment. Those measures would require NHS trusts to share the live births register with Sure Start outreach workers and would roll out trials of births being registered in children’s
	centres. That would mean that all parents would have to visit their local children’s centre, where they would be shown all the opportunities and services that are available to them and their child. That would contribute greatly to ensuring that we reach out to and help the most vulnerable families and, once again, improve the outcomes of the children within them.
	I know that many hon. Members are keen to speak, so I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. We will not oppose the Bill on Third Reading and we are as keen as Ministers for it to make speedy progress to the other place. However, I hope that the House and the Government are left in no doubt that there are a number of issues that my noble colleagues and, I am sure, peers on all sides in the other place will revisit. We are expecting big things from Ministers before then and I sincerely hope that they do not disappoint.
	Most notably, we want measures to ensure that support is not denied to young offenders with special educational needs and measures to increase the chance of young carers being identified and given the support that they need in order to improve their outcomes. We hope that the Government reconsider their position on PSHE and, in particular, sex and relationship education, and that they bring forward measures to make it compulsory before the Bill reaches the other place.
	I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) for her superb leadership through the all-party parliamentary group on HIV and AIDS in pursuing education on HIV and AIDS. One in four young people leaves school without being taught about HIV. The work that she has done in that area is commendable.
	If all the issues raised by Her Majesty’s Opposition and hon. Members from all parts of the House in the preceding debate are addressed, the Minister will be able to answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan on Second Reading and be confident that the Bill will improve the outcomes for millions of children, young people and families for a long time to come. In the hope that those improvements will be made, the Bill proceeds with our blessing.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. At least three Members still wish to speak and I hope that they all have the chance to do so.

Dan Rogerson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). I pay tribute to the way in which the Bill has largely been approached by shadow Ministers and the constructive way in which she offers her blessing as it proceeds to another place. Ministers have worked hard to make the case for all the important measures in the Bill and have done so successfully.
	I was not a member of the Public Bill Committee. Those places rightly went to the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), because of her ministerial responsibilities and my hon.
	Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who is not in her place but has a long-standing interest in these matters.
	The Bill will make a huge, positive difference to many young people’s lives and those of their families, and bring together the responsibilities of different agencies that are vital to ensuring that those young people have the best possible start in life. I pay tribute to earlier work done on the Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), and to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for what he did when he was in office.
	The Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), was at pains to point out that she still believes altering ratios in child care is the right thing to do although there was not a majority across Government for that. Similarly, the Liberal Democrats remain committed to progress on sex and relationship education, although again there is no majority across the Government. It is a measure of how the coalition is holding together by concentrating on where we agree and such issues as supporting adopters and young people with special educational needs that we have made such progress, but I know our noble Friends in another place will want to make a further contribution and perhaps even improve the Bill slightly—if that is possible—before it makes it on to the statute book. I congratulate all those involved in getting the Bill to its current position, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye.

Andrea Leadsom: Surely this has been Parliament at its best. It has been a huge privilege to be involved with the Bill Committee, and I really think that life is about to get a whole lot better for some of the most vulnerable young people in our society. On that point, I pay tribute to all those who have worked so hard to make this such a non-partisan and co-operative experience for us all.
	I draw the Minister’s attention again to the point about the opportunity to introduce the registration of births in children’s centres, and specifically to Bench Hill children’s centre in Manchester, which has been offering registration of births for 10 years. As a result, its access to all new families in that area has improved exponentially, not just in offering services but in the re-engagement rates of families with those services. That is incredibly important, and I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) for providing the resources in his Department to investigate how offering birth registration in children’s centres can make a fundamental difference to the support offered to new families.

Robert Buckland: I will be brief. I was accused of being a little less than brief earlier, but I mean what I say, and I think we have done an admirable job in scrutinising this Bill and that we send it to the other place in a very good state. There is still work to be done, and the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) and I have had keen debates about the Bill over the past months. I was delighted to hear his remarks in response to my right
	hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), who spoke on the young carers amendment tabled in my name together with those of other hon. Members, and to which the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) referred.

Barbara Keeley: The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way as time is short. Does he agree it is important that young carers get a signal from the last few minutes of this debate that the importance of the work they do is recognised? He understands, as I do, that there was a feeling that those carers felt let down and ignored by the Bill.

Robert Buckland: I think the message came out loud and clear from the Under-Secretary that the needs of those people will not be forgotten or neglected, and that they will be enabled to play their part as mainstream members of society. That is what it is all about; it is not just box-ticking but about enabling those people to take their place in society and have all the advantages of their peers who do not have caring responsibilities.
	I thank the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign and the Special Educational Consortium for the work done not only with Ministers but with me and other colleagues to marshal arguments in Committee and at this stage. Although those in the other place will still have work to do, there is no doubt that we have sent them a substantial body of evidence that this House of Commons is more than capable of doing justice and giving proper scrutiny to the most important Bill in a generation for those with special educational needs and young people who, through no fault of their own, face greater challenges than the rest of us in our society.

Jo Swinson: I am delighted to conclude the debate on Third Reading—the Bill is a joint effort between the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. It is fair to say that the BIS measures have not had the same prominence or debate, which is perhaps a mark of the remarkable consensus on them in general.
	I thank all members of the Public Bill Committee—the debate in Committee was positive—all those who contributed to the consultations and the formation of the policies in the Bill, and the Committee Chairs. It is important for those Ministers who came to the Bill part-way through its passage to recognise that our predecessors had significant roles in developing the policy. They also deserve thanks, as do officials within BIS—we have a fantastic team, particularly on shared parental leave and flexible leave, of Sarah, Andrew, Ruth, Kim, Chris, James and Chris. All those who have supported them have been wonderful. The officials who
	developed the children’s guide to the Bill deserve particular thanks. That is an exemplar of how we can open up law making in this country and make it understandable, and proves that age need be no barrier to that whatsoever.
	The Bill will help children and families in a wide range of ways. It will modernise systems for the 21st century on adoption and fostering, special educational needs and family justice, and strengthen the Children’s Commissioner. There are also proposals to improve affordable child care. As hon. Members have said, this wide range of proposals will make a difference to people’s lives.
	As a BIS Minister, I am delighted to take forward measures in the Bill on shared parental leave and flexible working. On shared parental leave, it is important that we shatter the outdated stereotypes of how parents divide their responsibilities—the assumption is that men are the breadwinners and that a woman’s role is to stay at home and look after children. Those decisions are up to individual parents, who will work out the right solution and answers for them. It is not the Government’s job to get in the way and tell them how to do it.
	The flexibility of the Bill will enable more dads to play a bigger role in the early weeks and months of their child’s life. We know from research that that has a positive impact on child development and later measures. The provisions will also enable mums better to combine their work responsibilities with their parenting, which is so important given the contribution women can make to the economy, which was highlighted in the excellent Women’s Business Council report last week.
	The right to request flexible working was introduced by the previous Government, and this Government rightly want to extend it to everyone. That will bring huge benefits to the economy. Employers benefit from more motivated and productive staff, and from lower recruitment and retention costs. Employees benefit because they are more in control of their time and more able to juggle their responsibilities, whether caring, volunteering or other outside interests. It is important for other groups of workers, such as older workers and people with disabilities, who can find a shorter, part-time or more flexible work pattern incredibly helpful to their ability to continue within the labour market and to contribute to the economy.
	Given that wide range of measures, it is incredibly important that we are able to pass the Bill on Third Reading. It will now go to the other place, where I am sure there will be a wide range of debates. I look forward to watching with interest which issues it chooses to develop, but the consultation process in advance of the Bill has been hugely beneficial and has got it into an excellent state. The House can be proud of the scrutiny we have given the Bill and the work we have done on it. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Court of Justice of the European Union

[Relevant documents: Thirty-eighth Report of the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2012-13, HC86-xxxvii, Chapter 3; and Fourth Report of the European Scrutiny Committee, HC 83-iv, Chapter 12.]

David Lidington: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 7013/13, the draft Council Decision increasing the number of Advocates-General of the Court of Justice of the European Union and, in accordance with Section 10 of the European Union Act 2011, approves Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to support the adoption of that draft Council Decision.
	As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, this proposal is subject to the European Act 2011, which means that before Ministers can take a position in the Council on the proposed appointment of three additional advocates-general to the European Court of Justice, parliamentary approval must be secured for the United Kingdom’s position. That is the reason for today’s debate.
	I believe that it is in the interests of this country for justice in the European Union to be delivered through the Court promptly and effectively. It is particularly important for British businesses with pan-European interests whose opportunities for business may well depend on clarity on the impact of European law.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way so early. I would just question whether we get justice from the European Court.

David Lidington: As with any other court here in the United Kingdom, I am sure there will be judgments with which my hon. Friend and I might have quarrels and wish that learned judges had come to other opinions. Where I would respond robustly to him is to say that, as far as I can tell, in coming to their decisions the justices of the European Union Courts take very seriously their duty to apply the law as it is found in the treaties and in secondary European legislation. The appointment of judges at the EU Courts is subject to approval by an expert panel. Indeed, to be eligible to serve as a justice in the European Court, the man or woman in question must either have served in a senior judicial office in their home country or be of sufficient standing in the law to be regarded as capable of exercising that kind of responsibility.
	I believe that the measure we are discussing will provide quicker and more efficient justice within the European Union. The proposal is to increase the number of advocates-general to nine from 1 July 2013 and to 11 from 7 October 2015. The first advocate-general would be a permanent Polish advocate-general. Under declaration 38 in article 252 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, member states agreed in 2007 that if there were an increase in advocates-general, Poland would have a permanent advocate-general and no longer take part in the rotation of advocates-general. This step would bring Poland into line with the other big six member states, including the United Kingdom, which all already have a permanent advocate-general. An additional two advocates-general would increase the existing rotation system from three to five. Under
	current arrangements, we would expect the first two additional advocates-general appointed in October 2015 to be Czech and Danish.
	In the 2011 report on the workload of the European Court of Justice, the House of Lords recommended that the number of advocates-general be increased. Since 2011, the Lords have repeated that recommendation several times, including in their follow-up report this year, and called for the increase to be implemented without delay. Last night, in its section 10 debate on this matter, the House of Lords approved the draft Council decision and Members of their lordships’ House spoke positively about the impact that additional advocates-general would have on the efficient functioning of the courts.
	The role of advocates-general is to produce non-legally binding opinions for the Court of Justice to assist it in reaching its judgments.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. In reference to House of Lords, the 2011 report questioned whether the quality of the advocates-general would be high enough. I wonder, therefore, what evidence has encouraged them to change their minds to be confident in the quality of the people who may be appointed.

David Lidington: I want to come on to the question of quality and the article 255 panel later. If my hon. Friend is dissatisfied at that point, then by all means I invite him to seek to intervene again. However, I think perhaps that it is best if I come to that passage at the appropriate time.
	I was talking about the role of advocates-general. They produce their non-legally binding opinions in about half of all cases, particularly in those that raise a new point of law. There is no appeals process, of course, so the additional reasoned submissions help the Court to provide effective justice. Given that the number of cases before it continues to rise, the Government are satisfied that there is a need for additional advocates-general to process better the Court’s work load.
	The opinions that advocates-general issue are a key element in the efficiency of the Court. As Sir Konrad Schiemann stated in his evidence to the House of Lords this year, advocate-general opinions significantly shorten the time occupied by judges in agreeing a judgment and improve the quality of the Court’s judgments. The opinions assist the Court with its own deliberations, because the Court can then test its own views against the detailed reasoning of the advocate-general conclusions. It is particularly useful in the EU Court because, unlike the practice in our own Supreme Court or Court of Appeal, it has to reach a consensus for its ruling—the possibility of separate dissenting opinions from different judges does not exist at the European level.
	As well as contributing to the speed of judgments, advocates-general also improve the quality of justice dispensed by the Court. The opinions are detailed and so provide a greater insight into the approach ultimately taken by the Court, regardless of whether it agrees or disagrees in the final decision with the recommendation of the advocate-general. That means that those opinions are valuable in maintaining the consistency of the Court’s case law.
	It is important that the Court is efficient, because of the impact that its judgments can have on British citizens and businesses operating in the European single market in particular. A classic example was the case brought by the National Farmers Union in the context of the BSE crisis—NFU v. Secrétariat Général du Gouvernement—against France’s refusal to lift the beef ban on UK imports. The Court ruled that since EU legislation laid down the necessary rules for the protection of public health, France was not entitled to rely on the public health exception in then article 30 of the treaty establishing the European Community to prevent the resumption of beef and veal imports from the UK. I am sure that the House needs no reminder that the beef industry was worth more than £430 million in exports to the British economy in 2011—the last year for which we have figures. Another recent example was the ruling of the Court in 2011 in the case of DHL v. Chronopost, which provides certainty for trademark owners on the extent to which a Community trademark owner could secure EU-wide relief based on action in only one member state.
	The impact of the EU Courts is not limited to cases in which UK businesses are directly involved. The outcome of other cases can have significant benefits for the UK, directly or indirectly. For example, there was a case on whether EU legislation allowed for prescribing incentive schemes—arrangements to encourage doctors to prescribe cheaper generic medicines. Adopting the approach suggested by the British Government in their recommendations, the decision of the Court resulted in an estimated saving to our Department of Health of nearly £400 million.
	Given the current number of advocates-general and the increasing work load of the Court, the individual advocates-general have been under pressure. There is no single reason why the Court’s work load has been increasing over the years. In 2012, 632 new cases were brought before it and it completed only 527. In 2011, 688 new cases were brought before it and it completed 554. These were the two busiest years so far recorded in the Court’s history. In 2012, the backlog of cases had risen to 886—up from 849 12 months before.

Keith Vaz: First, I congratulate the Minister for Europe on his French pronunciation, which I thought was A*, as they say.
	I am in favour of more judges, as are the Government, but is the Minister satisfied that having more judges will result in quicker decisions? He knows that one of our concerns is that it takes too long to get judgments. Is he satisfied that by putting these extra judges on the Court, the decisions will be handed out quicker?

David Lidington: We are talking here not about additional judges but about additional advocates-general. As I have argued, the advocates-general play an important role in assisting the judges of the Court in coming to a conclusion and in analysing the legal arguments in question. Clearly, I cannot give a 100% guarantee from this Dispatch Box, but I pray in aid the evidence of Sir Konrad Schiemann and others from the Court who have argued consistently that the provision of additional advocates-general would help them to address the backlog, in part by spreading out the preparatory work of legal
	analysis and the provision of a learned opinion amongst a slightly greater number of expert advocates-general than is available to the Court now.
	As the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—one of my predecessors in this role—will know, the enlargement of the EU over the last decade following the accession of a large number of new member states has inevitably led over time to a greater number of cases being brought, simply because there are more citizens and more businesses that might be in a position to bring a case before the European Courts.

Keith Vaz: I am grateful to the Minister, who is generous in giving way for a second time. That is why I was interested in the fact that a Polish advocate-general was to be appointed, because one of the problems we have is that Poland has been issuing more European arrest warrants than anyone else. This may, for example, eventually lead to a backlog in cases here.

David Lidington: The right hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity tomorrow to express his views about the European arrest warrant and the attitude taken by the Polish courts. It is fair to say that Poland is as equally entitled to have its own permanent advocate-general as Spain, Italy, France, Germany or the UK. Everybody round the table accepts that there are six member states whose populations give them a certain priority when it comes to such appointments. I emphasise again that the declaration that promised the first new advocate-general to Poland was agreed by every member state, large and small.
	The greater efficiency of the Court is going to require more than just the appointment of three new advocates-general. I am happy to concede that point to the right hon. Member for Leicester East. The House will be familiar with the reforms that the Court itself has introduced in the last two years, including increasing the number of judges in the Grand Chamber from 13 to 15; abolishing unnecessary procedural elements such as the requirement to read the report of the hearing in full, and thus the need to produce a report; provisions allowing for the appointment of temporary judges to the civil service tribunal; and establishing a new office of vice-president in the Court of Justice and the General Court. I am sure that there will be other opportunities for the House to debate proposed changes to the European Courts and proposed measures to secure greater efficiencies in the future.

Jim Shannon: Is the Minister aware of occasions when other European countries have not been anxious or zealous in enforcing the Court decision, or have delayed doing so? Does the UK push through Court decisions while other countries disregard them?

David Lidington: I am always willing to say that if any right hon. or hon. Member, or any UK business, can come forward with evidence that another member state is refusing to implement European law—whether that is law as interpreted by the Courts or the law as enacted through the European legislative process—we will be happy to champion those British citizens or companies with the relevant institutions. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know, once law has been established
	and clarity assured by a judgment from the Court, it is then for the European Commission to initiate infraction proceedings if a member state fails to implement the European Court’s rulings. It is fair to say that sometimes there is argument after the judgment about the exact meaning—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are drifting from the question of advocates-general. Mr Shannon has tempted you, Minister for Europe, and you should know better. Back on course!

David Lidington: If the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) applies to Mr Speaker for an Adjournment debate, he and I might have the opportunity to explore those matters in the detail that he so ardently desires.
	Let me return to the issue we are debating and the criticisms the European Scrutiny Committee has raised. Let me turn first to the important issue of funding. Although broadly supporting the proposal, the Government are clear that any additional advocates-general should not and need not result in an increase in the Court’s budget. The appointment of the new post holders and their support staff should lead to a relatively small additional cost of about €4 million a year, which the Court can meet from within its existing budget. Its budget was more than €354 million for 2013, and the Court has underspent by more than the cost of the additional advocates-general in each of the last three years. In the current economic climate, there is an imperative on all the EU’s institutions, including the Court, to find ways to reduce their administrative costs.
	As I set out in paragraph 12 of my explanatory memorandum to the European Scrutiny Committee, the UK is prepared to submit a minute statement in Council to set out our expectation that the increase is cost-neutral. If necessary, we will do that during voting on the Council decision. As I know the House understands, a minute statement in itself will not be enough to guarantee cost-neutrality, but would be a clear statement of the United Kingdom’s position ahead of the separate financial negotiations next year on the annual budget. Indeed, the minute statement is not intended to secure budget neutrality at this stage, but is intended to signal clearly the beginning of our negotiating position for next year.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way again. The agreement on the advocates-general is by unanimity whereas the agreement on the budget is by qualified majority vote. Are we therefore not getting it the wrong way round by agreeing to the increase in one before the debate on the other? Should we not delay our agreement by unanimity until we have the budget that we want?

David Lidington: These are two separate decisions that have two different processes. We are indeed talking about a decision that is taken by unanimity. Annual budgets are what will determine the total budget of the Court for 2014 and subsequent years. Those annual budgets will have to be agreed within the ceilings to commitments and payments that are set out in the multi-annual financial framework that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other Heads of Government negotiated in February this year, and which I hope is approaching the final stages of negotiation with the European Parliament.
	Delay of the kind that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) suggests would not get us very far. The Government’s view is that there is a persuasive case for the extra appointments to be made. The way in which EU finances are organised means that the negotiations on the annual budget will determine the total budget available to the Court. From that budget, the Court will have to meet its costs under various headings of expenditure, including this small one.
	I point out to my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom is not alone in expecting the Court to absorb the costs of the additional advocates-general. We are one of a blocking minority of budget-disciplined net-contributor member states that routinely votes against increases to the EU budget. We anticipate that that like-minded group will take the same view on any request to increase the Court’s budget to accommodate the new advocates-general. The Prime Minister’s recent success at the multi-annual framework negotiations should be an indication of how strongly the Government feel about budgetary savings.
	The European Scrutiny Committee also asked me to outline the Government’s view of the manner of appointing advocates-general and my view of the calibre of the likely appointees. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset made a point about this in an earlier intervention. The article 255 panel gives an opinion on candidates’ suitability to perform the role of advocate-general. The Government consider that the panel plays a key role in making the judicial appointments process more transparent and helping to ensure that the chosen candidates are of a high quality. The UK was a key supporter of the creation of such a panel, and we have consistently supported the application of rigour in the judicial selection process. The article 255 panel is effective in its role of assessing the suitability of nominees to serve as judges and as advocates-general. To date, the panel has delivered 43 opinions, of which five were unfavourable. In each case, the opinions delivered by the panel have been followed by the Governments of member states. When the panel has been unhappy about the calibre of a particular nominee, that nominee has subsequently been withdrawn.

Keith Vaz: The Minister is bringing a great deal of clarity to our discussion of the motion. Will he tell us how many members of that panel are from the United Kingdom?

David Lidington: We have one member on the panel. There are members from different member states represented around the table. The panel has to be drawn from people who have the right kind of experience and expertise to make these assessments.
	On the specific appointees for the additional advocates-general, we do not yet know who the candidates will be. Indeed, two of them will not be appointed until October 2015. It would not be right for me to comment on their calibre or to speculate about those individuals at this stage. That is the purpose of the expert panel.

John Redwood: But does the Minister not agree that what we want is fewer judges because we want fewer cases? The judges we want are
	the ones who will uphold the sovereignty of national Parliaments on far more issues than is currently the case—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I have allowed the right hon. Gentleman to intervene on the Minister even though he only arrived in the Chamber three minutes ago. However, the debate is about advocates-general, not about judges.

David Lidington: I would say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) that we need less legislation at European level. We need legislation to be written as clearly as possible, so that there is less need for the arbitration of the Courts. Regarding some of his criticisms of the ambiguity and over-prescriptive nature of European law, I have to say that I have heard such criticism being made of United Kingdom Acts of Parliament as well from time to time. None of this is perfect. He might have missed the point that I made earlier in my speech that British business finds it helpful to have a European Court of Justice applying the rules of the single market with clarity and, one would hope, with fairness. There have been a number of leading cases in which the decisions of the European Courts have led to significant practical advantages and opportunities for United Kingdom businesses and business sectors.
	I want to give a little additional information to the right hon. Member for Leicester East. I have been advised that Lord Mance is the United Kingdom’s member of the panel and that there are seven members of it in total. From memory, they are people who are selected on merit and who have held usually very senior judicial office, perhaps in the constitutional court or supreme court of their own country.

Andrew Turner: I have just heard a muttering from behind me suggesting that Britain’s nomination is absolutely brilliant and there is no doubt about that. The problem is that many people involved in these things on behalf of Europe come from universities rather than real law. Where are the majority of them from in this instance?

David Lidington: I am happy to write to my hon. Friend with a list of the members of the article 255 panel and their qualifications and experience. I would rather not venture an opinion from memory, but they do have to be people who would be employed in their member states in selecting very senior judicial office holders.
	It might be helpful if I now set out for the House the likely next steps for this draft Council decision, if it is approved by Parliament. The Court would like to have the first additional advocate-general, the Polish one, in post from 1 July this year and the other two from October 2015, when there will be a partial replacement of the members of the Court.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: If the Court hopes to have the Polish advocate-general appointed by 1 July, is there time for that person to be properly vetted by the article 255 panel?

David Lidington: As I was about to say, given that this request was only made by the Court on 16 January, and clearly a number of countries, including us, had to take forward the necessary domestic processes for approval, the 1 July date was always an ambitious timetable for the first advocate-general. In addition to our requirement for an affirmative debate in both Houses, Poland estimates that its own appointment process will take about four months.
	I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that the article 255 panel do its job properly and with due diligence. From what I know about the way it has operated in respect of other judicial appointments, I am very confident indeed that it will take that duty seriously and that, if it comes to a choice, it will regard exercising due diligence as more important than meeting any particular deadline.
	The Government are still hopeful that if parliamentary approval is secured today, the Council will be able to approve the decision during the Irish presidency, which ends at the end of June this year. Member states are able to appoint the first advocate-general at any point after that and do not need to wait until October 2015, when the final two advocates-general will be added.
	I hope that today’s debate will provide Members with the opportunity to consider this proposal fully, and that, having done so, they will agree with the Government that the addition of three advocates-general to the Court of Justice of the European Union is in the UK’s interests.
	As I said at the start of my remarks, this is a new procedure for us. This is one of the provisions of the European Union Act 2011 and before Ministers can vote in Council, the Government must secure affirmative resolutions in each House of Parliament. It is one small but none the less significant element of the work of trying to secure greater oversight by Parliament of decisions taken by Ministers in Europe on behalf of this country, and therefore in a small way helps to increase the democratic accountability of the EU, a principle that this Government strongly support.

Emma Reynolds: We welcome the opportunity to discuss the proposed increase in the number of advocates-general at the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Court performs a central role within the European Union. It has the responsibility of interpreting EU law and ensuring its equal application across the member states.
	As the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) mentioned—the Minister also referred to this point—although it may be true that when Labour was in government we did not always agree with the Court’s rulings and sometimes found them problematic, the Court and indeed the General Court play a crucial role in upholding EU law as set out in the treaties, and in ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market in particular. ECJ rulings have proven successful in enforcing competition rules and in ruling against protectionism, which is to the benefit of British businesses and British consumers. It is therefore necessary that the Court has the capacity to carry out those important functions allocated to it under the treaties. In particular, it is important that it is able to issue judgments in an effective and timely manner.
	As has been said, a significant backlog of cases continues to build and there are many reasons for that. As the Minister said last July, much of the recent delay at the European Courts is down to increased litigation by private parties, particularly on single market matters. In addition, the enlargements of the EU in 2004 and 2007 have brought a raft of new cases before the Court, substantially increasing its workload. That trend is likely to continue, as Croatia is to join in only a few weeks’ time, on 1 July. Unsurprisingly, these new member states have made greater use of the preliminary ruling procedure, which allows national courts to refer cases to the ECJ for guidance on EU law. Enlargement has also meant that there has been an increase in the number of appeals against decisions of the General Court which are taken to the ECJ. In 2008, just seven competition cases were appealed to the ECJ, whereas the figure had risen to 52 in 2012. Another factor is the changes introduced by the Lisbon treaty, particularly in the area of justice and home affairs. The ECJ now has enhanced responsibilities in that field, and the changes were not just prospective, but retrospective with regard to the body of law in this area already in place. Moreover, the increasing complexity of cases brought before the Court has added to the burden.
	The cumulative effect of all those factors is that the advocates-general, in their current numbers, have sometimes been unable to deliver an opinion within an acceptable time limit. At present, as the Minister has explained, eight advocates-general advise the Court on all matters of European Union legislation. However, it is in only about 50% of cases that an advocate-general is able to issue an opinion. As has been pointed out in evidence given to the House of the Lords by a representative of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, the absence of an opinion by an advocate-general
	“increases the risk of uneven or, on occasions, contradictory caselaw.”
	So it would seem sensible to increase the number of advocates-general, which would in turn increase the capacity of the ECJ to process cases in a timely manner.
	The Court proposes, and the Council has indicated it will agree to, an increase in the number of advocates-general from eight to 11, and the Minister has today reiterated the Government’s support for that change. As he has explained, the increase will be staggered, with one new advocate-general starting, we hope, on 1 July this year, and the other two appointed later. According to an explanatory memorandum from the Minister given to the European Scrutiny Committee in March, the proposed new advocates-general are predicted to cost an extra €4 million. We agree with him that at a time of greater public spending restraint and economic difficulty it is important that that money is found from within existing budgets.
	The ECJ has a budget of almost €354 million for 2013, so it is to be expected that the money to pay for at least the first new advocate-general may be found without the need for an increase in the budget. Will the Minister update the House? He mentioned the negotiations in preparation for next year on the financial implications of this change. Will he say a little more about which allies the UK Government have found in other member states, and what he thinks the chances are of ensuring that the change is cost-neutral?
	Both the European Court of Justice and the General Court have important responsibilities in terms of upholding not only EU legislation, but the four freedoms—freedom of movement of people, goods, capital and services. Just this year, the General Court ruled that in the event of the cancellation of an air flight, the carrier is required to provide compensation even when the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances such as the eruption of the volcano in Iceland in 2010. So the decisions of both the General Court and the European Court of Justice have implications for British business, British consumers and British workers, and in many cases those implications are positive.
	The changes that we are debating in the motion will ensure that the European Court of Justice is better able to carry out those duties, so we are content to support it.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I congratulate the Minister on the Bill he brought forward a year ago that allows us to hold this debate, which is crucial in ensuring that European matters are properly discussed. As I understand it, we are the only member state of the European Union that will have this type of debate to make this important decision.
	Beyond that, I diverge from the Minister. I diverge from him particularly in his admiration for this Court. I do not believe it to be a just Court. We must always remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it was this Court that ruled in its own favour to increase its own pay, against one of the fundamental principles of justice—that a judge should not rule to his own advantage. So it is not a proper, just Court like the noble courts that we have in this land; it is a Court with a political agenda, which is always pushing for more integration, for more Europe, towards the federal superstate, which we in this House who value the sovereignty of Parliament and of the British people should treat with the greatest suspicion.
	The Minister spoke of the rulings that have come down occasionally in our favour, and the costs that we have been saved; I think BSE and pharmaceuticals were the two specific examples that he gave. I hope he might consider doing a cost-benefit analysis of all the judgments delivered by the European Court of Justice, to decide whether it has saved us money, or whether overall it has cost the British taxpayer money, since we joined the European Union in 1972.
	But let us come particularly to the increase in the number of advocates-general and what is being achieved by that. What we are really doing is contributing to the growth of the power, the bureaucracy, the size, of the superstate that the European Union has become. By making the European Court bigger and stronger and able to take on more cases, powers are more centred at the European level. They will have a greater ability to determine the law in this country. The efficiency of the European Court of Justice is something that should make people who are concerned about parliamentary sovereignty nervous, because the more efficient it can be, the more it can interfere with our laws and the more it can take power away from Westminster.
	And then we look at the cost: the €4 million cost that will be added to the total cost of the European Court—the extraordinarily high cost that the European Court has to start with of over €350 million. I looked up briefly
	the cost of our own Supreme Court. It was estimated in 2009 to cost £13.5 million to run. Perhaps this is a case for privatisation to a British court, because if we can get justice in this country with our highest court for £13.5 million, I wonder what it is that requires €350 million to be spent at the European level.
	In a letter, the Minister explained some of the extra costs. These grand panjandrums—these advocates-general —do not just get their pay and their staff; they have to have cars as well. It is all part of the great European gravy train, with cost being piled on cost. When unanimity is the issue, the British Government, rather than taking the opportunity to use their power to delay or stop something that the European Parliament, Commission and Court want, give in at an early stage, so the negotiating strength that we would have had when setting the budget is frittered away. I ask the Minister: what are we hoping to get in return for not using our veto?
	In our relationship with Europe, when we are in a position of strength and we hold the good cards, do we play the ace of trumps? No, we do not; we play some lesser card that I would know more about if I were a better gambler. That is the error of our European relationship. We talk in this House about repatriating powers, but when we negotiate in Europe, we continue to give them away to allow the European centre to become stronger.

Lady Hermon: I am most apologetic for the fact that I was not here in the earlier part of the debate, but I did hurry into the Chamber. Has the hon. Gentleman ever read a reasoned submission by an advocate-general? Knowing him slightly as I do, and knowing the quality of his contributions to the House, I am convinced that he would be most impressed by the logic, intellect and reasoning in some of those submissions. I think that if he took the time to peruse them, he would support the motion.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but she misses the point that I am trying to make, and evidently not making clearly enough. It is not an efficient, smooth-running European Court that I want, because that is at the heart of the political expansion and centralising power of the European Union. If we look at what the European Union has done, and how it has become an increasingly federalised system, we see that it has done so through the judgments of the European Court, which has increasingly ruled in favour of more Europe. It is a political Court, much as the United States Supreme Court was in the early 19th century. It is about bringing federalism to the peoples of Europe. I accept that it has some of the highest intellects as members; I would not begin to deny that. We have sent some very fine judges there, with prodigious brains, ability and intellect, but what they have done after getting there is take power away from the United Kingdom and this Parliament. That is what I most strongly object to, and I object to the Government not using their negotiating position to get something in return.
	The Conservative part of this coalition is looking to a renegotiation, to repatriate powers, but at the same time, it is doing things that increase the power and authority of the European Court. That seems to me to be fundamentally a mistake.

Lady Hermon: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene on him a second time. I listened carefully to his reply to my first intervention. May I ask him for a reply to the question that I asked: has he ever read a reasoned submission of an advocate-general?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Lady asked me a question that went into sub-paragraphs on whether I was denying the great intellect of the advocates-general, which I think was at the heart of the matter, and I was saying that I admire their great intellect, but I do not want their great intellect deciding the rules of this country. I want the intellects of the British people, sending Members of Parliament to this House, to decide the laws of this country. I do not want rule by the cleverest continentals; I want rule by the good, honest, British—English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish—people, ensuring that this country is properly governed.
	I want the Government to do what they said they were going to do in relation to increasing the number of judges when, in a letter of 27 July 2012, they said that the increase in judges should be part
	“of a wider discussion on improving the efficiency of the Court and containing its cost.”
	But now, less than a year later, we roll over and say, “Have a few more advocates-general because it will make you more efficient.” This cannot be the right negotiating stance to take. Again and again, it is more Europe, more advocates-general, more smart cars for them to drive round in, more cost to the British taxpayer—a very high cost—and instead of saying, “This must change; we will change it; powers must be repatriated,” we roll over and wait for our tummies to be tickled. I do not want my tummy tickled and I do not want more advocates-general.

Keith Vaz: I do not know whether that is an invitation for me to cross the Floor and tickle the tummy of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), although I would love to do it in normal circumstances. It is always a pleasure to follow him because he speaks so powerfully about these issues and studies them so carefully that he knows that a few months ago the Government promised to look carefully at the way in which the Court operates.
	I will be brief because I promised the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) that I would be, and we have an opportunity to discuss other European issues tomorrow. I welcome the fact that we are having so many discussions about Europe on the Floor of the House. That takes me to my first point, which is how much I agree with the hon. Member for North East Somerset about how important it is that we discuss such issues on the Floor of the House, even though the attendance is not quite what we would have liked. [Interruption.] The Government Whip reminds me that it is the quality that counts, not the numbers. It is indeed.
	The Minister said that this was not additional expenditure because it was to be found from the European Court’s existing budget and because the European Court had underspent. If indeed the European Court has underspent, I would like to know what encouragement the Government have given it to ensure that rather than appoint more
	advocates-general the money is used to make it more efficient. The fact that it has been unable to use the underspend to improve its efficiency is clear from the considerable time it has taken to decide a number of important cases. Will the Minister explain what steps the Government have taken over the last 12 months to ensure that the Court becomes more efficient, because it has more money available to do so?
	I fully support Poland getting the new advocate-general seat. As the Minister’s predecessor, I was involved in the enlargement process. We always thought, and thought correctly, that, given its population, Poland would want to take its place as one of the big countries of Europe. I am glad that we are sticking to the agreement that we made that Poland should have this additional post. However, I am not sure that the Minister told us who would get the other two vacancies, and how that would be decided. If they are up for grabs, so to speak, and bearing in mind the importance of the enlargement process, perhaps it would be a good idea, rather than offer them to other countries that are already represented on the Court, to offer them to countries that have joined because of the enlargement process. One of the most important outcomes of enlargement is that we make representation in the European Union wider.

David Lidington: I can give the right hon. Gentleman some clarity on this point. The proposal is that the remaining two new advocates-general should become part of the normal rotation process for the nomination of advocates-general among those member states that are not entitled to a permanent advocate-general of their own. In other words, it is all of the soon-to-be 28 member states of the EU minus the biggest six countries, once these new measures are in place. We would expect, if the current arrangements for rotation continue, the two new advocates-general in 2015 to come from the Czech Republic and from Denmark.

Keith Vaz: I thank the Minister for that clarification and look forward to ensuring that that expectation is met.
	My final point relates to the speed of the Court. The hon. Member for North East Somerset wants the Court to slow down, because he believes that speeding it up will result in greater integration. I am in favour of speeding it up, which is why I support the proposal for move advocates-general, not to ensure that we have a federalist Europe, which I oppose, but to ensure that the decisions they have to take are dealt with in a timely fashion. The delay is inexcusable. It should be considered very carefully. I am disappointed that the Minister could not assure the House that, as a result of the decision to appoint three additional advocates-general, the Court’s decisions would be speeded up, because of course he has no evidence to suggest that appointing another three will make the decisions come through any quicker—they will take their time to do what they have to do. I would like to see decisions made much more quickly in a whole host of areas, and primarily in one area that I believe is very important. If decisions have to be made as part of the legal process, they should be made as quickly as possible, because that benefits all parties.
	I will end where I began by agreeing with the hon. Member for North East Somerset: it is so important that we discuss these issues on the Floor of the House.
	The Government should never take it for granted that, because there are so few Members present and because Opposition Front Benchers agree with them on an issue, they will never be challenged on one of these motions. There should always be an expectation that Parliament will decide to do something different, which at least we have the chance to do so. I warmly welcome that.

Martin Horwood: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), as indeed it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg)—two of the most eloquent Members in this place. I agree almost entirely with everything the right hon. Member for Leicester East said, and I disagree to the same extent with everything the hon. Member for North East Somerset said. In my view he says the wrong thing, but he says it very well.
	I agree with the hon. Member for North East Somerset on one point, however: he is quite right to emphasise the importance of the fact that the debate is taking place at all, which is a realisation of the intentions we had when we passed the European Union Act 2011. Whatever differences might have emerged since between the two coalition parties over our attitude to European scrutiny, take-note debates and debates on approvals of Government actions in relation to Europe, such as this one, are important procedures that we agreed in the 2011 Act. It set out the terms and conditions under which referendums would be held and under which votes of this Parliament would have an impact on European decision making, which is an entirely good thing.
	We have occasionally complained about the lack of thoroughness of European scrutiny in this place—for example, over the recent review of the EU arms embargo and its timeliness—but on this occasion I think that the belt-and-braces approach is working rather well. The fact that there is a rather thin turnout suggests that we might even be overdoing the level of scrutiny on this occasion. We do not seem to have a very high turnout, even on the ultramontane Conservative Benches.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think that my hon. Friend would be more charitable to the Conservative Benches if he knew that there was the alternative attraction of a meeting with the Prime Minister and Mr Lynton Crosby.

Martin Horwood: They are obviously discussing Australian affairs, rather than European ones, but I am sure they are having a productive time.
	It seems to me that Conservative Members, having argued so strongly for such an inordinate amount of parliamentary time to be devoted to Europe, should turn up and exercise their right to pass comment.
	A strong European Court of Justice has to be a good thing for the UK. It is the ultimate court in which matters of EU law are determined within the European Union. That is a good thing for Britain because it ensures not only, on occasion, that we are compliant with EU law but, most importantly, that all the other 27 member states are too. As the Minister rightly pointed out, that frequently benefits British companies. Given the value of our relationship with Europe, it is crucial
	that the single market operates properly and is seen to be properly enforceable. If we argue for weakening that process, we are not only arguing for Britain to have a greater say over our interpretation of European law but for the French to have a greater say over its interpretation in France and for the Germans to have a greater say in Germany, and so on. Ultimately, the system becomes unworkable and unfair.
	The hon. Member for North East Somerset was wrong to object to a smooth-running and efficient Court almost on principle, as I understood his remarks. It is wrong to use a court of justice as a negotiating tool and a lever for a political agenda. This is about the fair application of European law to British businesses and to the institutions of the European Union. In that respect, he should strongly support this, because the European Court of Justice has the right to tell EU institutions that they have overstepped the mark and exceeded their powers.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I apologise for not making myself clear. The reason I do not want it to be efficient is that I do not believe it is just.

Martin Horwood: We have sent some of our best quality advocates and lawyers to take part in the European Court of Justice, and other states have done likewise. It is rather insulting to the advocates-general and, indeed, judges who are in place to say to that it is not capable of passing a just judgment.
	I am very pleased that the position of the British Government is that the additional cost of the extra advocates-general should be met from within the existing Court budget. I gather that that will be an additional €4 million or so, of which Britain’s share is probably €500,000, or some £400,000, a year. I would entirely support any measures that we can take to impose further austerity on these judges. That would be a useful thing to consider if they really are getting free cars. There is a need for the European Union collectively to realise that European finances are in a parlous state. That applies as much to the EU level of government as it does to the British level or to local or regional governments. In a time of austerity, it is absolutely right to look at the costs involved in such positions. It is a good discipline for us to be saying that the additional three advocates-general should be paid for from within the existing European Court budget.
	That money could be well spent on behalf of British businesses, because the benefits of a freely and efficiently operating single market could be enormously greater. After all, we have £300 billion-worth of trade with other members of the European Union, we get £365 billion a year in foreign direct investment from other member states, some 3.5 million jobs are associated with trade with the EU, and some 200,000 British businesses trade with other member states. The single market is enormously important for jobs. We need it to operate fairly and efficiently in order to benefit British jobs, and that means that the European Court of Justice must operate smoothly and efficiently. That justifies the appointment of additional advocates-general to try to clear the enormous backlog of cases that now exists. I care very much about jobs in Cheltenham, and Liberal Democrats care about
	British jobs, so on this occasion we are four-square behind the Government in supporting the expansion of the European Court to allow for the extra advocates-general.

David Lidington: I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate and shall attempt to respond briefly, with the leave of the House, to the various points and questions that have been posed.
	I turn first to the characteristically eloquent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). He and I have debated in the past and I am sure we will have opportunities to debate again the extent to which there should be European Union-level competence over particular areas of policy. He and I may agree on some parts of that debate, and we will certainly have different views on others. The point of principle in the context of today’s debate seems to be that if European-level rules and laws have been established and legislated for at the EU level—most obviously to govern a single market in goods and services—we need some kind of supranational EU tribunal or arbiter to decide on the interpretation of those laws and rules and to resolve any conflicting assertions as to the correct interpretation of them.

Lady Hermon: On the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, I am sure that it has not gone unnoticed that it always wishes to promote equality between men and women. Have the Minister and his colleagues pressed the ECJ to ensure that the new advocate-general will make the existing advocates-general representative of men and women across Europe?

David Lidington: The hon. Lady is right that, on jurisprudence, the Court has treated this issue as one of great importance. Of course, it is for individual member states to nominate men or women to serve as advocates-general, and it will then be for the article 255 panel to consider whether those nominees meet the strict criteria and standard required under the treaties. I would hope that there is fair representation. It is important that the ablest men and women are willing to be considered as potential candidates.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for taking a second intervention. I hope that, aided and abetted by his lovely team, he will now be able to throw some light on the current composition of the Court’s advocates-general.

David Lidington: I will write to the hon. Lady with that information, but I can tell her now that, as I am sure she already knows, the United Kingdom’s advocate-general is indeed a woman who, whether one agrees or disagrees with her particular opinions, is an extremely able lawyer who contributes a great deal to the work of the Court.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset argued that the Government should carry out a cost-benefit analysis of the Court’s impact on the United Kingdom. The Government, as the House will know, have launched a review of the current balance of competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The 32 calls for evidence and reports on different aspects of policy will give ample opportunity to businesses and others to argue where ECJ decisions have been of
	benefit to this country and where they have been harmful. Without revealing too much, I can tell the House that the forthcoming report on taxation policy—it is as yet unpublished—will make specific reference to leading cases in the European courts and how they have had an impact on the United Kingdom.
	My hon. Friend also said that he wished that the Government had demonstrated a willingness to exercise a veto over the measure for the appointment of three new advocates-general. I say to him that a veto should not be brandished if we think that the measure concerned will be to our overall advantage. I also say to him that the Prime Minister has shown that he is willing to exercise a veto and to block measures that he believes would harm the interests of this country. We must use our negotiating capital skilfully and be prepared to be cussed and awkward if necessary about the things that really matter to the interests of the British people. The Government have been right to play hardball on issues such as the multi-annual financial framework and the long overdue reform of the common fisheries policy, and in our refusal last year to accept the proposal to set up an operational headquarters for the EU’s common security and defence policy.
	I was asked a number of questions by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and others about Court reform and how we were seeking to promote greater efficiency, and about financing. I will deal with those two central questions before concluding my remarks.
	On Court reform, a key point to emphasise is that the treaties give the Court of Justice the prime role in initiating proposals for its reform. Under article 281 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, changes to the Court’s statute can be proposed by the Court on its own initiative after consulting the Commission or by the Commission after consultation with the Court. The Court can propose amendments to its rules of procedure, but they need the approval of the Council. There is a Council lock on proposals, but the proposals must in the main come forward from the Court. The House will readily understand why the treaties were written in a way that protects the Court to some extent from political pressures. Within that context, we have been consistent in urging the Court to take seriously its duty to look hard at the possibility of internal administrative and procedural reform, as well as looking for other ways to enhance its efficiency and deal more promptly with the growing backlog of cases.
	The reforms that have been agreed over the past two years, with the support of the United Kingdom, have included establishing the new office of the vice-president of the European Court of Justice and General Court. The quorum in the Grand Chamber has been changed to allow greater flexibility. We have seen the abolition of the requirement for a report for hearing and for the reading of that report. That has saved a lot of time when one adds up the savings accumulated over a large number of cases. We have seen the agreement to create a pool of temporary judges for the civil service tribunal. We have also seen changes to the ECJ’s rules of procedure to provide greater efficiency.
	Other ideas are still being discussed. One to which the UK Government are quite sympathetic is the creation of specialist chambers within the Court. However, that is
	for the Court to propose if it is persuaded that it is the right course on which to embark. As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and other Members will know, the House of Lords Sub-Committee that is considering these matters has produced detailed reports on Court reform and efficiency.
	Finally, let me turn to finance. The UK is one of a group of like-minded, budget-disciplined member states that work together routinely to push down the EU’s annual budget costs. The group includes Denmark, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, France, Germany and Austria as well as us, and we have no reason to believe it will be less focused on budget discipline this year. It is fair to say to the House that the €4 million needed for the advocates-general cannot be negotiated in isolation and would be one part of an annual budget negotiation of roughly €130 billion in total. The bill for the advocates-general and their staff would be less than one 100th of a percentage of the EU’s total annual budget for 2013.
	To respond to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East, I say that the Court can request funds, but funding is for co-decision by the Council and the European Parliament. If we look at what has been happening in the EU’s annual budget for 2013, we see that the Court requested an increase to its budget of 8.4%—€29.2 million—which in percentage terms was the biggest requested increase for any EU institution that year. In practice, the UK and its allies worked together to reduce that increase to just 1.9% in 2013—slightly below the level of inflation. There is no reason to believe that the same could not be achieved on budget neutrality for the advocates-general, particularly given the underspend in the Court’s budget in each of the past three years.
	Clearly this matter is one component of a much bigger negotiation, and the Court’s total budget forms just one part of the overall annual EU budget. There is, however, no doubt about the Government’s determination to ensure that those small additional costs are met from within the Court’s existing budget, and in particular its publicly known underspending. We will continue to work assiduously for the best possible efficiency and the greatest possible value for money, not just in the affairs of the European Courts but in every institution of the European Union.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 7013/13, the draft Council Decision increasing the number of Advocates-General of the Court of Justice of the European Union and, in accordance with Section 10 of the European Union Act 2011, approves Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to support the adoption of that draft Council Decision.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Tribunals and Inquiries

That the draft Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 24 April, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Greg Hands.)
	The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 12 June (Standing Order No. 41A).
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Tribunals and Inquiries

That the draft Added Tribunals (Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 24 April, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Greg Hands.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Immigration

That the draft Accession of Croatia (Immigration and Worker Authorisation) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 8 May, be approved.—(Greg Hands.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Youth Employment Initiative

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 7589/13, a Commission Communication: Youth Employment Initiative, No. 7533/13, a draft amendment for a Commission proposal COM(2011) 607 final/2 – draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Social Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No. 1081/2006, and No. 7537/13, a draft amendment to Commission proposal COM(2012) 496 – draft regulation of the European Parliament and Council laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund covered by the Common Strategic Framework and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No. 1083/2006; and agrees with the Government that the Youth Employment Initiative must respect the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, and give Member States and regions the flexibility to support the most effective interventions possible with the best use of resources, in a way that complements their existing policies and programmes to tackle youth unemployment.—(Greg Hands.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Financing European Political Parties

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 6321/13, Opinion No. 1/2013 concerning draft Commission Regulations on the statute and funding of European political parties and foundations and to amend the Financial Regulation (EU, Euratom No. 966/2012) as regards the financing of European political parties; notes that these proposals are still being considered by the Council; and supports the Government’s position that this report is a welcome contribution to ongoing negotiations, and that the UK, along with other Member States, should endeavour to ensure the draft regulations are amended, where necessary, to reflect some of the concerns expressed in this Opinion.—(Greg Hands.)
	Question agreed to.

BUDOCK HOSPITAL SITE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Greg Hands.)

Sarah Newton: Although this is not the sort of thing one must declare, I declare an interest as I am proud to be a former pupil of Falmouth school. It must be the only school in the country to have a former hospital in the centre of its campus. Budock hospital was for people with psychiatric care needs or significant learning difficulties. The top half of the former hospital site houses the buildings, and the lower slopes—known locally as Trelawney’s field—were originally jointly managed by the school with NHS social services and a farm project for young people with learning difficulties. I have fond memories of volunteering for that project as a sixth-form student.
	The current head teacher has been in place for 12 years or more. Throughout that time, Cornwall council has had various conversations with the NHS to try to secure the lower part of the site for educational purposes, facilitating access to the playing fields on the far side of the hospital. The hospital was demolished, and the whole site was reclaimed and fenced off by the NHS in 2008. The school has had an overgrown and derelict site at its centre for five years, which presents significant safeguarding concerns for the school.
	The NHS had several schemes to relocate health services to the site, but they have never materialised. The schools, local sports groups and the wider community in the town have no access to floodlit all-weather sports facilities—groups must travel to Penryn, Truro and Redruth to access such facilities when there are available slots.
	On 8 February 2012, the head teacher wrote to NHS Cornwall to register an interest in purchasing the hospital site if and when it goes on the market. At a subsequent meeting, a Mr Wakeham said he would take the school’s interest to the NHS board. Despite follow-up calls, no decision was made.
	In April 2012, the school appointed a land agent to negotiate with the NHS on its behalf to try to secure the purchase of the site. The agent had numerous discussions with the NHS, but no resolution was secured. In May 2013, after several letters from me, the school managed to meet representatives of the newly formed NHS property service company and its agents, BNP Paribas, Origin 3 planning consultants and Cyril Sweett quantity surveyors. It was made clear at the meeting that the NHS and its agents felt bound by Government requirements to secure the highest price for the site on the open market without consideration of community benefit. We know that that contravenes the Government’s policy and guidelines. The school presented the proposed plans for development and the local planning officers explained the local planning framework progress and emerging needs for the town. Those points seemed to be of little interest to the agents, who reinforced the fact that their clients were interested only in securing the best price for the land.
	On 24 May, BNP Paribas released the site to the market with “residential potential”. That would make Falmouth school probably the only school in the country with a housing estate right in the middle of its campus. The council, as landowners, has advised that the local
	planning framework has earmarked the site for educational purposes. The school is prepared to pay educational land value for the site.
	Falmouth school’s current site is fragmented. The aim is to consolidate it and make significant improvements to benefit the whole community. One satellite field of the school at Union corner is inaccessible for curriculum use owing to its location across a busy main road into the town. The school is proposing to sell that field to raise the funds to buy the hospital site and install a full-size, 3G all-weather pitch for school and wider community use. The two sites—Union corner and Budock hospital—are similar sizes.
	The architect confirms that approximately 90 to 100 houses—a mixture of terraced, semi-detached and detached, and the appropriate number of affordable housing—could be built on the Union corner site. Approximate valuations from the council suggest that the school’s estimate of £2 million as a receipt for the site is realistic.
	The local planning framework proposes approximately 3,200 new homes in the immediate area of Falmouth and the school, and there will be a need for a further 400 secondary school places in the medium term. Consolidation of the site and improved sports facilities represents best value for the taxpayer, because it will allow the existing school to meet the needs of more students —there are currently just over 1,000 on the roll. If the project does not go ahead, the school will not be able to grow, and the council could be forced into a building a new school, or parents and council might have to pay for transport to schools some distance from Falmouth.
	There is also the implication of the essential road junction improvement at Union corner, which needs this land. The infrastructure is essential for delivering wider growth for the town. The road scheme has secured essential and substantial part-funding towards its delivery. The road will become the main artery, making access to the school’s satellite field even more difficult. The scheme submitted to the Department for Transport totalled £2.23 million, and it has secured just under £1.6 million through pinch-point funding—we were delighted to receive that news two weeks ago. It is also included in a bid for £500,000 of round 4 of the regional growth fund. Cornwall council is currently waiting for approval, which is expected in mid-July. The remainder funds have already been allocated from the council’s local transport funds.
	Cornwall council will still seek to claw back funding from future developments given their impact on this junction, but the funding will be used to deliver the wider improvements identified in the Falmouth and Penryn strategy. The published local plan document highlights the hospital site as being required for development. Cornwall council’s draft infrastructure development plan emphasised the need for the sports facility. It described it as essential as Falmouth continues to grow.
	The school has consulted the Education Funding Agency regarding the sale of the Union corner site to acquire the former Budock hospital site. As the school will meet all the conditions in section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, it will achieve this consent. The council suggests that the educational value of the Budock hospital site is approximately £750,000.
	A full-sized, 3G all-weather pitch costs about £800,000, although there may be some unknown ground works to contend with.
	The school has consulted the newly elected local Cornwall council members, and all support the project, as do the newly elected town councillor for the ward, the mayor of Falmouth and the town centre manager. A public meeting was held on 16 May 2013 and all present supported the scheme. Falmouth university supports the project. Sports groups pledging their support include: Cornwall Squash and Rackets Association, Cornwall football association, Falmouth hockey club, Falmouth Road Runners, Falmouth Town football club, Falmouth United football club, Falmouth cricket club and Falmouth rugby club—we have a thriving sporting community in Falmouth.
	The school council has been consulted and the wider school population has been advised, and all are excited about the prospects. Today I received a letter from the Minister saying that the former hospital site will be taken off the market. I cannot thank the Minister enough for his intervention. The headmistress and the whole school community wanted me to pass on their thanks for his helpful intervention to help us find a resolution to this situation. I am very pleased that it has been taken off the market, so that we can have another meeting and get around the table with the NHS property company, the district valuer, the whole council and myself. This is welcome news.
	I was, however, slightly concerned by something in the letter. The NHS property company is advocating the original offer from some time ago, of a land swap option to resolve the issue. This is no longer the best outcome. Let me explain why. Approximately 15 months ago, the primary care trust and the school were in talks regarding a straightforward land swap, as the size and value of the two sites were relatively similar. However, because of the changes to the planning framework, which I have already outlined, the hospital site is designated as educational, while the Union corner playing field is now clearly designated as residential. This changes the value of the two sites. As a result, the land swap would not be the best use of public money or of these two sites. I am grateful that NHS Property Services has signalled that it is prepared to get around the table—this recent change of attitude is very welcome. Although I do not think the swap is the best way forward, I am sure that, with the Minister’s support, we can find a sensible solution that works for the NHS—hard-pressed as it is and in need of every penny to invest in front-line services, as we all appreciate—for Falmouth school, for Cornwall council and for the wider community.
	In conclusion, this is an immensely important scheme for Falmouth. It will be an Olympic legacy in terms of improved sports facilities for the whole community. It will put the school on a secure footing for generations to come and contribute to the economic redevelopment of this part of Falmouth, bringing much-needed affordable homes and supporting exciting new and growing companies in the area. Having received the Minister’s support in his letter today, I now seek an assurance that the land swap will not be the only option. If following the meeting on 21 June with all the parties concerned, which I am chairing, we can make a sensible case for giving significant funds to the NHS while enabling us to realise this important project, we will be very content indeed.

Daniel Poulter: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing this debate and on her ongoing tremendous advocacy on behalf of her constituents. She talked eloquently of her own knowledge of the school—“care farm” is the expression I would use in my constituency—and the relationship between the school and the old hospital. She highlighted the importance when looking for value in NHS land of doing as much as possible to maximise the land receipt and put that money back into the NHS, but of course NHS land is community land, and it is important that, wherever possible, we work with surrounding communities to support them in local activities that benefit the population.
	My hon. Friend also outlined eloquently the challenges faced by more rural parts of the country, and Cornwall in particular. We know that community resources and facilities are much scarcer in rural areas, as she highlighted in her speech. When we look at the affordability of local homes and the provision of community facilities, rurality is an important consideration and one that we always bear in mind in the NHS.
	I appreciate my hon. Friend’s interest in the Budock hospital site and support her concern that best use be made of public sector land not only in releasing its monetary value, but regarding the availability of affordable homes for local people to live in. I understand that NHS Property Services has intervened to begin the process of facilitating a mutually beneficial resolution of the issues previously hindering the sale of this land to the local school. Those issues predate the transfer of ownership to NHS Property Services, and were between the former Cornwall and Isles of Scilly primary care trust and Falmouth school. Thanks to swift action since NHS Property Services took over control of the NHS estate, the issues are well on their way to being unlocked. NHS Property Services inherited a portfolio of 4,000 other properties from 161 disparate previous NHS organisations on 1 April, and a win-win resolution is now in sight.
	I am sure we will have other debates on similar matters, so it is worth outlining to the House the role of NHS Property Services and some early successes that have occurred. On 1 April, NHS Property Services inherited about 4,000 NHS assets, including health centres, office accommodation, care homes and hospital buildings. It houses about 12,000 tenants and is valued at more than £3 billion. It also inherited more than 3,000 members of staff from former PCTs and strategic health authorities throughout England. This brand new organisation is already doing tremendous work in the face of this huge challenge to create efficient, fit-for-purpose facilities and services for the benefit of patients and the public. All too often in the past, there was an unacceptable variability in estates management—not just in this case, but throughout the NHS—by PCTs and SHAs. The advantage of having estate management under one central roof has already paid dividends throughout the NHS. The creation of NHS Property Services has generated an opportunity to explore options to bring together a fragmented system—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I just gently remind the Minister that this is a very tight debate? We are talking about one site; we should be
	dealing with Falmouth and nowhere else. There may be a good story to tell but we can save that for another day.

Daniel Poulter: Indeed. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for bringing me back to the task in hand. There are many good stories to tell from other constituencies but you are quite right; we should focus on how successes in Ludlow and South Suffolk can be translated into success at the Budock hospital site.
	The focus of NHS Property Services is about resolving some local planning concerns where PCTs have had difficulties in the past, which is what we are going to concentrate on. I understand that Falmouth school’s plans to purchase the Budock site pre-date the transfer of land to NHS Property Services on 1 April 2013. The school and the former Cornwall and Isles of Scilly primary care trust had previously agreed to enter into a land swap to release the school’s playing fields—which were difficult to access—for the hospital site. The NHS was then to dispose of the playing fields for housing land.
	I understand that differences in the size and estimated value of the sites, and planning permission issues, had prevented both parties from reaching agreement to progress this proposal, which commenced some time ago in 2011.
	The Government’s priority for easing the shortage of land for housing development is to see development take place in sustainable locations; the predominantly brownfield sites of some of the old NHS estate no longer used for clinical purposes can help bring forward land for affordable homes to be built for local families. The Budock site is brownfield land and is located in a settlement that is forecast to experience significant growth over the coming years, as my hon. Friend outlined.
	The site was assessed under the Cornwall strategic housing land availability assessment and found to be suitable for approximately 100 dwellings. My hon. Friend will also be aware that Treasury guidelines on managing public money state that public sector organisations may transfer assets among themselves without placing the property on the open market, provided they do so at market prices. They also state that the organisations should work collaboratively on the transfer to agree a price, and that it is good practice to commission a single independent valuation to settle the price to be paid. My hon. Friend said that is the plan in this case.
	I am pleased to report that NHS Property Services and the school have agreed that the original proposal can be revisited, with a planned joint instruction to the district valuer from both parties. NHS Property Services has agreed with Falmouth school that it will take the Budock hospital site off the market while reviewing the original land swap option. To enable both the school and NHS Property Services to deliver these proposals, support will be required from the local planning authority to ensure that a clear planning brief is available for both sites. I am sure my hon. Friend will be helpful in facilitating that accord. This will ensure that both organisations and the district valuer can understand and agree an estimated value for both sites.
	This value can be demonstrated in land value and in wider community benefits such as housing, health and well-being, and education and leisure use. My hon.
	Friend eloquently outlined the many local sports and leisure groups that are hugely supportive of this project, and rightly so. The project will be for the sake of the local community and would be beneficial as well to the NHS through the profits from the land, which could be distributed elsewhere to support local NHS projects.
	The potential outcome from this approach is a win-win situation for the local community, the school and the NHS. NHS Property Services will be able to maximise receipts from the sale of the current school playing fields for reinvestment in front-line NHS services. Falmouth school and the wider community will benefit from improved access to leisure facilities on the former hospital site, and much needed housing development in the Falmouth area will be brought one step closer. I understand that an initial report setting out the context and options for the proposed transaction can be delivered within six weeks. That will require the co-operation of the school, NHS Property Services and, importantly, the local planning
	authority. The report should set out a programme to include a target of three to six months for initial agreement, in the form of a contract to be reached for the transaction. This could take a number of forms, subject to the advice that both parties receive from the district valuer—contract for sale and option agreement.
	This evening my hon. Friend has eloquently outlined the case for why the project should go ahead. I will of course be monitoring progress on the ground. The door is always open for her to come and see me if there are further problems or concerns. I am sure that her tremendous advocacy on behalf of her constituents will continue to unlock the potential of these proposals and make them a reality.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.